Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Block messages for anon editors

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Ambiguous_phrasing. Why are we encouraging blocked editors to essentially sock? Example: "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. That message directly contradicts our blocking policy, which has always been understood to mean that the block is on the person behind the edits, regardless of what identity they use. This needs to be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also agree, we should reword the template when the anon=yes parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the anon=yes parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like "If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in". Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see {{ uw-ublock }} on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, NeilN, I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed I came here explicitly because of {{uw-ewblock}} and was surprised to find that language being used: it's basically a welcome mat to sock and isn't at all reflective of the various flags being used in blocking scenarios. Templates used for anon blocks where the implication is that the user can freely edit if they have an account can be counted on one hand (e.g., {{schoolblock}}, {{anonblock}}, and in rare instances {{uw-vblock}}). While it's true most of our blocks of IPs are anon-only by default, we typically don't explicitly advertise the fact. --slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  It's still unclear to me what we're trying to change. When you say "we don't typically advertise" that it's anon-only, I'm lead to believe that that's simply because the old Twinkle Warn module didn't use the anon=yes parameter. When I built the Twinkle block module, I passed in this param to the block templates for anon-only blocks, as it appears that is how the templates were designed and intended to be used. Obviously, it was not well thought out that the If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit wording could have an adverse effect. So the question remains, are we okay with just removing that bit and keeping the "Anonymous users have been blocked" (as opposed to "You have been blocked")? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can we get this fixed? I've had to go back and modify two block notices int he last few hours because it was still telling them to go ahead and evade the block if they had a named account. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• What it really should be saying is that if this is collateral damage, that is if the user is not the person blocked, but now has the IP because it is dynamic, then that person could and should log in and thus avoid an improper block. But I'm not sure how that should be worded concisely yet learly enoguh for a uw message. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Beeblebrox, DESiegel, NeilN, Liz, and Slakr: I'm going to bring back up my proposal, which you can view at Template:uw-block/sandbox. Feel free to modify. I think the idea is that for soft blocks, state that only anonymous users are affected, but that uninvolved editors can still edit using a registered account. This proposed modification I think addresses these concerns, and is inline with our friendly suite of warning messages that have a similar fine print message below them. If we are happy with this I can sit down and spend a painstaking 15-20 minutes deciphering the parser functions of {{uw-block}} to get rid of that now unneeded if-else statement for the anon-only copy. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly better than what we have now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks good to me. The net change is "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit." → "If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in." The new phrasing can be included inside the block message or appended in italics below as MusikAnimal did. I have coded a revised version of the template for both cases and will replace the current template upon request. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: If you are able to get this implemented that'd be great. I see looking at the code there's an if-else check on whether to show the copy "Otherwise, once the block has expired...". We can remove that if-else and just keep the else part, which checks for an indef param and if not preset will show "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to...". Too many curly braces and brackets, it makes my head spin! You said you have this implemented somewhere, perhaps in your userspace? We should do some thorough testing before updating {{uw-block}}. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I coded it off wiki. I can replace the sandbox with a coded version this evening (EDT). Do you want the new version to keep all the text in the block message or place it below like in your version? Also, should {{{legal}}} suppress the new text? Currently {{uw-lblock}} uses it to suppress the parts of the message, including the "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit." part. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I say let's put the new message below the template like in my example, but again only when {{{anon}}} is set. We should retain all other existing functionality, so if the {{uw-lblock}} template wants to hide that message than I think we should too. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:uw-block/sandbox has been updated to a working template for testing. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Going to test this out with Twinkle tonight (EDT). Thanks JJMC89! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Little late getting to this, but I tried out various scenarios on testwiki and it looks OK! Would you like to do the honours? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal, Beeblebrox, DESiegel, NeilN, Liz, and Slakr: {{uw-block}} has been updated with the revised language. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"If...you may..." needs to be "If...you might..." (because of its conditional clause).

As for all templates, I have noticed that all templates of levels 3 and 5 use a conditional clause which says "If you [do this again], you may be blocked from editing.". I feel that it is incorrect because these sentences are conditional, so we need to use the past tense form of might instead, rather than may. This in a conditional clause "would" (not will) actually be more correct if we had done that upon agreeing this. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to legal language where possible (but not guaranteed) penalties are set. E.g. "Persons who commit the crime of XYZ may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed..." etc. A quick online search of several dictionaries each indicate that the word "may" is sometimes used to indicate possibility, and the word "might" is given as a synonym for this usage. In other words, I'm not sure this is needed, but I'm neutral to the idea.  Etamni | ✉  06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Etamni. Neither usage is wrong, and there are other contextually synonymous constructions ("might be", "could be", etc.). I oppose changing this, because "may" is the most concise possible way to say it, and it's adequate. There is nothing ambiguous about the construction (though there can be for some other uses of "may": "You may laugh" means both "it is permissible for you to laugh" and "you could end up laughing").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Might is the past tense of may, and it can also be used conditionally, but, if both of you be neutral about it, I might as well just do it to see what happens. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism can also be copyright infringement in a way.

As for Template:Uw-copyright, what if I have said "possibly plagiarized"? Would that be better? Also, the reason why I did that was because I have argued that it would be plagiarism if one were to treat another's work as if one's own by using it over and over despite giving credit to another, which makes it sound as if one were just using it as an "excuse" of doing so and not really being honest about giving such credit, stealing his work therefore. That is my point of view, and that is why I have done it. Is there something which I need to know? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I know that material does not have to be copyrighted in order to be plagiarized. I am sorry for having sounded ambiguous, but I was refering to the copyrighted for the whole time. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, because that makes the sentence factually incorrect. Currently it reads

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.

and you attempted to change it to

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept plagiarized material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.

In general there is no legal bar to our using plagiarized material, since material can be plagiarized from sources which are in the public domain or released under free content licences which do not require attribution. And conversely, it is possible to properly credit the source of text or images (thus avoiding plagiarism) while still violating copyright.

The problem this template addresses is copyright violation and not plagiarism. Please do not conflate the two. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Psychonaut: copyright infringement is a legal problem, plagiarism is not, and they shouldn't be confused. Both are against policy here. Just to clarify, although some free sources may not themselves require attribution, using content from them in Wikipedia always does: "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies."

It would be good to have a different, separate user warning template for plagiarism too (unless we already do?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. How often do you encounter users plagiarizing public-domain or CC-0-licensed material? I've been monitoring copyright problems here for about ten years and can't recall discovering a single instance where that's happened. If I'm wrong and this is a demonstrably common problem, by all means create a template; otherwise we can do without the clutter. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, I am probably just delusional. I still stick to my old statement delusionally, but forget it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for being a vandal just for adhering to my point of view, and I have always known that plagiarism is not as bad/illegal as copyright infringement. I just unintentionally vandalized by still currently accusing my original statement of being true. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I only accused it of being plagiarism not because both it and copyright infringement had been synonymous, but because authors do not really give credit to works' true authors because they treat them as if they were their own, thus lying about really giving such credit and therefore plagiarizing, but I apologize for vandalizing Wikipedia. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, you haven't vandalized anything as far as I can see. You just made a good-faith attempt to improve the project, and it turned out that your contributions were deemed unnecessary by the community. It happens all the time here; it's how we work. Nobody's upset, and I hope this experience doesn't dissuade you from sticking around. Just take it as a learning experience. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Tweaking uw-coi

The disclosure sentence currently reads like this

• Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

I am sometimes asked how to disclose, either because the editor skimmed over the TOU and missed the disclosure part or they are focused on the bolded text and did not read the TOU at all. I'd like to copy the Paid contributions without disclosure section of the TOU to an en-wiki page and link requires disclosure to that. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Made the change. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I've encountered similar situations, where none of us knew WP:PCD existed. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is uw-npa1 kinda creepy?

Is it just me or does the current text of {{uw-npa1}} give off a really creepy cultish vibe? I realise it's trying for "friendly and helpful" (but then so do hegemonizing cults!), but at least to me it just comes across as creepy. Possibly that's because it is a warning, but it's trying to hide behind happy friendly language, so it gives the overall effect of a drone programmed to be friendly and polite so it can murder you in your sleep. It's not even "the iron fist in the silk glove"; it's "Norman Bates moves to Stepford"!
No? Just me? Ok then. --Xover (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xover: I'm not getting that vibe, but I guess that means that I've been too brainwashed by the hegemonizing cult. Since I'm a lost cause, how would you rewrite it? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, dunno, but I think the bits that are setting off my detector are "a comment that didn't seem very civil" (either it is or it isn't) and "needs people like you and me to collaborate" (weirdly intimate for a warning about lack of civility). Maybe something more direct would help: "I noticed that you made a comment on the page Article that didn't seem very civil doesn't meet our standard for civility, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate is built on a foundation of collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner."
Or something like that at any rate. --Xover (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I like your changes – I say just go ahead and make the changes to the template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the "seem to" (or some similar phrase) in the first of those two sentences. One of the goals especially at level1 is to make it (overly) clear we're people not machines making this response. But I do like using the phrase "standard of civility", since that emphasizes that it not just one editor's opionion vs another. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Uw-agf-sock documentation error

{{uw-agf-sock}} gives an example of {{uw-agf-sock|Article}} in its documentation, but the field is actually expecting a username, not an article name. It's using the {{single notice}} documentation template - what's the easiest fix, here? --McGeddon (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I've added param1=user name to the template and fixed an error in {{Single notice/inner}}. Better now? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

All good. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2015

RE: {{Uw4}}
We should re-add the text "This is your final warning" because it and this should be the exact same thing, except swapping out "final" for "only". Krett12 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The wording was changed nearly a year-and-a-half ago and has been stable since, so to change it back will require a community consensus. Painius  20:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:uw-notenglish

The template, Uw-notenglish, leaves a few lines of blank space above it when used. See here, when it was used as part of a Twinkle edit. I have no idea why it does this, but when used it doesn't look good. I have no idea how to remove the blankspace from the template, but hopefully someone will be able to do this. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The template appears to be okay; it's whatever adds the header that seems to be adding two lines of whitespace above the header. I've seen a bot or two that does this, also. Maybe a small Twinkle bug? Painius  00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

Please change the Special:Listusers link to Special:CentralAuth, since the former only searches for local usernames. However, in the field of account renaming, we search for usernames across all Wikimedia projects, which requires the use of CentralAuth. Thanks. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 17:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@K6ka:  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect vs. Link Target

I made this edit before I noticed that it had been done by someone else and then reverted. I'm going to leave it rather than self-reverting for now, because to me it seems like it makes more sense to use the link target (which is shorter anyway), but if someone disagrees I'm fine with being reverted. Best, Mww113 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

COI category maintenance?

Both {{Uw-coi}} and {{Uw-coi-username}} contain the comment THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. with that category being Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Currently, it has over 41,500 pages in it, so I think this category has been a bit neglected. Would anyone be opposed to a bot performing automatic removal of this category after a period of time? Say, two weeks, or a month? I think it would help make this category useful again for those that might try to keep an eye on it, if it contained only recent notices. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:47, 4 Tishrei 5776 / 09:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:01, 24 Tishrei 5776 / 09:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about uw-username

Is it just me, or does {{uw-username}} encourage people to sock by saying "...[change of username]... or you may simply create a new account for editing" ? The [CHU] text is immediately before it, but the fact that it's even suggesting creating a new account seems like a very bad idea (and against sock rules). Primefac (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to include an advisory against sock-puppetry (with an appropriate link). DonIago (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Clean Start (if the offending user name hasn't been blocked yet) and correcting username violations (if they have been blocked) are legitimate uses of alternate accounts per WP:SOCK, as long as the original account is no longer used. Maybe we should change it to say "create a new account for editing and cease using the account with the offending name". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Whitespace problems eliminated in Template:Uw-ublock-famous

This version of the {{Uw-ublock-famous}} template finally eliminates the problem of spurious whitespace being generated between the end of the template and a signature on the same line. I'm not sure how I fixed it: I've just gone through the entire template attempting to replace any eve slightly unusual formatting constructs with common ones found in other wikitext. The changes should have little or no impact on other formatting, and I've not changed the text at all. -- The Anome (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: Removing the whitespace (returns) between </includeonly><noinclude> before {{Documentation}} fixed the problem. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

Between the word "vandalism" and the word "If you would like to experiment", add "Please understand that deleting and editing comments is considered bad practice, even if you mean to correct spelling or grammar mistakes." 125.239.151.237 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw4im

Currently, we have messages which say "This is your only warning; if you harm Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.". However, why do we happen to have the word may in it? The template itself indicates that this is the last straw before being blocked, so why do we have the word may instead of would? May in the sentence means that there are probabilities that the offender would not be blocked, so, unless someone could explain why, I would prefer the word would other than may.

Also, as it currently is, would "you may be blocked from editing without further notice" sound better if it were "you may be blocked from editing without further notice." instead? The emphasis in bold in my opinion is better because it sounds as if a warner were really desiring for the offender to stop now. What do you think of my opinions and how they currently are? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: I have always assumed that the word "may" was used because the person placing the template, if a non-admin, does not make the final decision about whether to apply a block. That is the prerogative of an administrator, who may feel that a block is not justified. There is also the non-trivial matter that someone actually needs to notice that further harm has been caused! So there are a couple of reasons why we conceivably might not follow through with a block. – Wdchk (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-coi

See also: User talk:Godsy § Regarding Template:Uw-coi

EU laws and the WMF terms of use

• @Elvey: I've made some changes to your recent addition. While some of the information is due, it was unwieldy and over-detailed. Just wanted to get some input, and bring the change to your attention. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Elvey: I've restored it to the version before your recent addition. I tried to incorporate the change in a reasonable manner, but you reverted that. WP:BRD. I think that much information is undue, unwieldy, and unnecessary.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson: I condensed and removed information from {{Uw-coi}} including removing the "extended legal warning". {{Uw-coi-min}} probably isn't necessary anymore, as they are almost the same now. What do you think?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I went ahead and put it up for deletion per CSD T3, you could expedite the process and put it up for deletion per CSD G7, or remove the speedy deletion tag if you feel it is still needed. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: No, I can't "remove the speedy deletion tag", because policy is that an editor may not remove a speedy deletion tag from a page he or she created. ( After the number of times over the years I have informed editors about that policy, and the much smaller number of times I have blocked editors for continuing to do so after being informed, I think if I did the same myself I would very much deserve a long block.) I am not willing to have it deleted under criterion G7 while the issue is still under discussion here. If and when it becomes clear whether Template:uw-coi is eventually going to contain extended legal information, it will be possible to decide whether Template:uw-coi-min is redundant to Template:uw-coi or not. If the answer is "yes", then I will be all too happy to delete it, but if not, then to have it deleted on the grounds that it was redundant will not be helpful. In fact, I wonder if you might consider removing the speedy deletion tag, pending the outcome of this discussion: you can always put it back if at the end of discussion you still think it should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I was aware that speedy deletion tags generally shouldn't be removed by the author; WP:T3 doesn't specifically state that, and it's "semi-"speedy deletion, but alas. I'll remove the tag at this time, though I'd suggest that if this template is to be kept in the reduced longstanding form, that it be retained here. This template hasn't changed a whole lot since its creation in 2007, and we shouldn't throw a surprise at editors using it if what they expect to transclude still exists.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

US laws and the WMF terms of use

Undid revision 687675094 by @Godsy: noted above. It did NOT "remove over detailed information regarding EU laws". It removed ALL information regarding US laws! That's not OK.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Please address the above. Why is ALL information regarding US laws unnecessary in your view? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elvey: That wasn't my intention; the EU laws were expressed clearly, the US ones were not, hence I overlooked them. Regardless, I think most of the addition is unnecessary, as I've expressed in the section directly above this. I tried to initiate conversation there when I originally altered your addition, and after my revert to the version before your addition.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue overall

• In response to the questions from Elvey within this secition and from my talk page:

• "Diff showing replies to any of these questions please" - [2] [3]
• "Why is ALL information regarding US laws unnecessary in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws over-detailed (sic) in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws unwieldy in your view?" - When I was condensing your addition to the template, I happened to leave EU laws and remove US laws. Firstly, the European information added was clearly stated as such, while the information about the United States wasn't [4]. The FTC is mentioned, but the US isn't explicitly, the EU and Germany are. Secondly, I always try to be extra conscious to be un-bias, to maintain a worldwide view, as an American. Both of those things contributed to my overlooking the information about the US. Lastly this is all beside the point, though I've indulged it with an answer- See directly below.
• Most of the information you added [5] should be removed, and the template should be restored to a state similar to what it has been since its inception [6]. I tried to trim it to a more reasonable size [7] and initiate conversation about it [8], but I wasn't taken up on the offer, instead it was reverted [9]. I'm going to restore it to the version before the recent addition [10] (for a second time- restore, revert). I have now amply explained my reversion, despite everything that has taken place. I'm generally always willing to expand or elaborate on my rationale, though I had already given valid reasoning relevant to the removal of the entire addition (i.e. the EU and US information, etc.) previously [11]. Elvey: the burden is on you to gain consensus for a major change/addition to a long standing template such as this.

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You keep reverting over and over again, while dodging substantive discussion question I keep asking (and until you wrote the above, reverting and "responding" while avoiding substantive discussion entirely). That was edit warring. It's you that has repeatedly refused to follow dispute resolution procedures, but rather has stonewalled by refusing to answer the questions repeated for the FIFTH time, at "2)", below. The edit histories show I reverted only after you repeatedly failed to engage, and instead reverted.

Still unaddressed:

1)Your edit's summary was deceptive. It did NOT "remove over detailed information regarding EU laws". It removed ALL information regarding US laws! Are you saying you overlooked it accidentally? If so, what is it OK to add back about US law, in your view? Maybe you're ignorant of the fact that FTC regulations have the force of law.

2) Why is ALL information regarding US laws over-detailed (sic) in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws unwieldy in your view? You say you happened to remove US laws. That doesn't address the question; you have stated (e.g. in edit summaries) that you removed the information on US law because it was "unnecessary", "over-detailed", and "unwieldy"; therefore it is reasonable to expect you to answer the reasonable question, which asks you merely to provide the reason why you think it is those things.

3)Do you accept that "All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures."? What objections do you have, if any, to adding that to the template?

--Elvey^(t•c) 19:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the entire lenghty addition in regard to both EU and US laws. Sort of on the same order as the issue described in the avoid instruction creep essay. The link to the terms of use is adequate. The template provides general information, the information in question is too specific. Perhaps a quick mention of the "{{connected contributor (paid)}}" template would be warranted, I'm against the rest of the addition.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It is worth nothing that Elvey, is topic banned from "..all discussions involving COI, broadly construed...". They will probably not be responding to queries on the subject, whether voluntarily or not.--Adam in MO Talk 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested, but the discussion has been lengthy and it is not clear what the issue is. Can someone please state a concise question? Is the issue about EU law, about US law, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• My opinion is as follows. Inserting into this template a long and detailed account of legal issues which apply only in the European Union is certainly inappropriate, as the template is intended for general use, for any editors with a likely conflict of interest: many editors do not edit from the European Union, and including such extended content which is relevant only to some editors is unhelpful. There may be a case for briefly mentioning the fact that conflict of interest editing may under some circumstances be illegal in the EU, and there may be a case of having a special-purpose template with a little more detail for use in cases where there there is reason to believe that it may be relevant to a particular editor. Even then, however, I do not think there is a case for such extended content as has been added: throwing such a long and detailed wall of text at an editor is unhelpful; it is highly likely to mean (a) that the editor simply doesn't read it all (See WP:TLDR) or (b) that he or she reads it, but actually takes in less of the content than he or she would have done had it been much shorter, or (c) that he or she is intimidated or antagonised by it. I also think that posting a message with such an extended warning about possible legal problems could well be thought to fall foul of Wikipedia's policy on legal threats: at the least, it could be seen as creating a chilling effect. All this is not to say that having a page which provides a detailed account of the possible legal problems is not a good idea, but I do not think this template is the right place to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In any case, this is still a dispute before more than two editors, so I removed it from third opinion noticeboard. I would suggest considering other forms of dispute resolution. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this one be removed?

I am referring to {{subst:WQA-notice}} WQA was closed years ago - though I sometimes wish it hadn't been. Shouldn't this be removed from the warnings to avoid confusion for those who don't know what it is? I thought I would get other input before being WP:BOLD and deleting it. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove it is since WP:Wikiquette assistance is closed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It is tagged as historical, isn't included in Template:User noticeboard notices, and the retention doesn't seem problematic. I'd TFD it, if you feel it should be deleted. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Perhaps I was not clear in my first post. I am not asking for the template to be deleted. I am asking whether the mention of it should be removed from the table of "Single level templates." I cannot see that is serves a purpose there other than to confuse editors who do not know that WQA ever existed. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks for the clarification: I concur that the removal of the now defunct template from that list would be highly appropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here we have a discussion which reached clear consensus to remove the content, but neither of the participants then removed it. I'm not sure why, but I have now done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spamublock: "You may be granted the right to continue"

This is a small detail, but it bugs me. The text says, pretty near the top, "If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username." The "if" clause is admittedly far-fetched — the ones I myself block using this template obviously aren't here to edit constructively in other topic areas. They have created, say, the account User:Mattressfirmlittleton, which I just blocked, and the "article" Mattressfirmlittleton, which I just speedied. But nevertheless, every time I post the template on them, I'm uncomfortable about the italics: "may be granted the right". It sounds so aggressive — a bit like I'm not just blocking them, which I'm happy to do, but grinding their nose in the dirt. They're not criminals. In most cases they probably just didn't know what Wikipedia is for. (Recidivists exist too, but the first-timers may well be doing it innocently.) Can I please change it to say "you may be granted the right to continue", without the italics? Bishonen | talk 09:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

First of all, Bishonen, you are clearly referring to Template:Uw-spamublock, but you didn't say so. Probably you clicked on Template talk:Uw-spamublock to edit, and didn't notice that you had been redirected to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, where it may not be obvious to all readers which template you are referring to.

Having got that detail out of the way, on to the substance of what you say. I agree 100% that getting rid of the italics would be an improvement, but why stop there? The whole template is appallingly badly constructed, and should be radically re-written. Personally, I never use it. There are many things wrong with it, including the following:

1. It is unnecessarily intimidating. While a few of the editors who receive the template on their talk page are unscrupulous spammers, most of them are good-faith editors who simply didn't know that using Wikipedia to promote their business was against policy. Block them, yes, tell them that they are blocked because promotion is unacceptable, yes, but there is no reason to be unfriendly in doing so.
2. It is far too long, which produces a too long, didn't read effect: time and time again I have seen editors who have been blocked and given this templated message making unblock requests which show quite clearly that they have in one way or another failed to take in the essential points of what the message says. (To give just one example, some editors offer to change their username, but make it clear that they wish to do so in order to continue promotional editing, showing that they have completely missed the most important point.) If the message were far shorter, and just stuck to clearly and concisely covering the essential points, rather than trying to cover everything, blocked editors would be more likely to take in those essential points.
3. Because the template is cumbersome and intimidating, many administrators don't use it, and instead use some other template, such as Template:Uw-softerblock or Template:Uw-usernameblock. The trouble with that is that it is very unhelpful to give a block message which conveys the impression that the username is the main or only problem when in fact promotional editing is the main problem. It encourages the blocked editor to believe that what they were doing is perfectly OK, and they can carry on doing it, provided they change their username. This results in (a) perfectly good-faith unblock requests, which are declined despite complying 100% with what the editor has been told to do, or (b) changes of username (either via an unblock request or by creating a new account) followed by being re-blocked, despite, again, complying completely with what the editor has been told. There are at least three problems there: telling an editor "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing" and then blocking them when they do so is unreasonable and unfair to that editor; it also wastes the time of administrators who then have to deal with the follow up; and it damages the encyclopaedia, as it leads to editors continuing to edit for promotion, instead of making it clear to them from the start that doing so is not OK.

Years ago I decided never to use this appalling template. At first, I used to hand-write individual block messages, but after a while I created a simplified version of Template:Uw-spamublock, and for a little over a year and a half I have been using that. It is not perfect: it was just a quick job I did of cutting out what I thought were the worst features of Template:Uw-spamublock, and it could certainly be improved, but anyone interested can see it at User:JBW/sp-un. I am certainly far from being the only person to dislike Template:Uw-spamublock: I remember Anna Frodesiak expressing criticism of this template, and I have certainly come across other administrators who have done so, though offhand I can't name any. I have just discovered that Anna Frodesiak too has a customised replacement for it, even more simplified than mine, at User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-soa-block. Is anyone in favour of drastically cutting down and re-shaping the template? If so, would a version as short and simple as Anna's be good, or do editors feel that we really need more detail? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• As a tiny first step, I have followed Bishonen's suggestion of removing the italics from "you may be granted the right to continue". If anyone thinks they should go back in, please let us know why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed naming the template, JamesBWatson; I guess you didn't notice I added it to the header later when the penny dropped. I can't believe anybody ever reads the whole spamublock template. But I've been using it for cases where the username and the contributions are pure advertising, because it seems quite counterproductive to tell those cases — tell them emphatically, in bold, yet, as Uw-usernameblock does — that "your username is the only reason for this block". Please let's put James's version in its place (Anna's is overly simple for my taste), so we can have it in Twinkle. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

You are right, you added the link to the template into the section heading between my reading your message and my posting of a reply, and I didn't notice. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On the more important issue, here are a couple of thoughts on the relative merits of my version, which Bishonen prefers, and Anna Frodesiak's version.

1. I do think that there is advantage in having something as simple as Anna Frodesiak's version, as it makes it easier for the editor to take in what it says, but on the other hand it has the disadvantage that it does not impart some information which, in my opinion, is important. For example, I think that while "If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked" is good wording for some block reasons, such as vandalism (I ought to think so, as it was I who introduced that wording to the block templates) it is insufficient information for a spamusername-blocked editor: if he or she is thinking of asking to be unblocked, then he or she needs to be aware of the need to (a) offer a change of username, and (b) make it clear how his or her editing will be different in the future. Failing to make that clear merely encourages the editor to waste both their own time and one or more administrators' time with block requests which are bound to fail.
2. The part of my version which I am least sure about is "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising service." When I wrote that, it was intended to clarify the situation for new editors who come to Wikipedia with the very common perfectly good faith belief that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can add any content they like to Wikipedia, including using it to advertise their business/band/club/whatever", but it is possible it may come over as a little bitey. On balance, I am still in favour of keeping that wording in, but I am open to other opinions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer both James' version to Anna's versions to the current, and James' to Anna's. (The latter, even if for no other reason, because of the "and/or" - there's more specific templates that can be used if only the edits or username are problematic.)

The paragraph on the current template after "Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?" gets across the same idea as "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising service." in a more useful way, I think. I'm much less sure whether it's worth being that much wordier, though. —Cryptic 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• All right, nobody has commented for a few days, but the people who do comment seem to agree in hating the present template. I really need a template for this purpose, I've used it several times yesterday and today, and it makes me uncomfortable every time. So I have boldly replaced it with James's text. When admins use it via Twinkle and see that it's quite different, they will perhaps come here if they disagree with the change. Could somebody, for instance JamesBWatson, please check the technicalities still work? Bishonen | talk 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC).

  P.S. Ouch. I see there are a couple of extra, visible, curly brackets, but I can't figure out where I need to remove them from. Please help. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC).

   Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have tested it, and it seems to work OK as far as I can see.Thanks, Bishonen. For ages I have been uncomfortable about this template, and every so often I have thought of coming here and suggesting changing it, but for one reason or another I have kept putting it off. Even though what you originally said here was just about a tiny detail, it was what it took to prompt me into at last making my proposal. I did wonder whether before making such a major change to such a much-used template we should invite more participation in the discussion, but having thought about it, I think your approach is best: make the change, and let anyone who doesn't agree come and comment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a template for changes to article

I need to explain to an IP that you don't complain about problems in an article by editing the article itself. I'll do my best to construct a message on the IP's talk page, but I don't know if it'll be what should be there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking through the list one more time, I found it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-refimprove

There are times I'd like to nudge users to get into the practice of adding sources, but the user was not editing a new article, and this template currently reads: "Thanks for contributing the new article ..." On the other hand, {{Uw-unsourced1}} is not appropriate, as it implies that their edit was removed: "It's been removed and archived in the page history for now ..." However, sometimes I know (or trust) that the information is correct and am not contesting or reverting the addition, but want to encourage the new user to add sources. Perhaps Uw-refimprove could be reworded to: "Thanks for contributing to the new article ..."?—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems a sensible tweak to make this template more widely applicable, although placing such a template on a user-talk page will not always result in the action desired, and the editor placing it should consider also inserting a {{citation needed}} in the article, or of course referencing the addition yourself: Noyster (talk), 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Uw-wrongsummary template loop

@NE Ent: Where was the template loop that you fixed with this edit? It was causing signatures to appear on the line below in a <pre> block - see this VPT thread. I'm hoping that there's a way to fix both of these problems at once, but I can't do much about it until I know where the template loop is happening. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging George Orwell III, who undid Ent's edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "loop" problem occurs when more than one of these template types is applied like so...

{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} ~~~~{{subst:uw-deadlink}} ~~~~

{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-deadlink}} ~~~~

... instead of ...

blank line
{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}}
blank line
{{subst:uw-deadlink}}

... Why this family of templates do not use any sort of container block element seems odd to me but I'm not fully aware of all the possible uses admittedly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems a strange reason to add a newline. A template loop is where a template transcludes itself, which is not the case here. If it were the case, neither extra spaces nor newlines would make any difference.

When templates have a <noinclude>...</noinclude> portion (usually for doc or cats), the opening tag of that portion should be butted up against the "real" template code directly, without intervening spaces or newlines, since those will be left in place when the <noinclude>...</noinclude> is stripped out.

When I put one of these templates on a user talk page, I sometimes add extra text after the template but before the sig, usually with the offending diff, and a block would force that extra text to a new line which is not always desired. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Usage was

{uw-wrongsummary|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2|No one cares about kittens when chocolate chip cookies are in play! <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 10:31 pm, 4 November 2015, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−5)}} 

(tongue in cheek, not a serious warning). When I hit preview that a red "template loop" warning showed up, never really did figure out why. I compared the template source to similar templates and tried adding the space; it seemed to help. NE Ent 11:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The template is not intended for use as {{uw-wrongsummary|...}} but as {{subst:uw-wrongsummary|...}} Try it like that, see if you get the same error. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-coi-min

{{uw-coi-min}} appears to have been deleted, but is still listed on this page. Should it be removed? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a question for JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) who both created it and deleted it, the latter under WP:CSD#G7. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for pointing it out.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

uw-longterm nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_15#Template:Uw-longterm; please comment there, not here. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Talk-vandal1}}-4 and 4im proposed for deletion

Discussion found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 20#Template:Talk-vandal1. - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on skipping levels

The page states "In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. Alternatively, in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance." What does "obvious bad faith vandalism" mean? It links to the joke page "assume bad faith". If that instruction is itself meant to be a joke, then that's not clear and I don't think it's appropriate on this page. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think if someone's replacing good content with profanity, for instance, that constitutes "obvious bad faith vandalism". I agree that it seems questionable to link to a joke page in this instance. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The link to the humor page should probably go as it si not really helpful. I can say that if I see soemone who, int heir first few edits, is attacking other users, adding profanity to articles, or other things that can only be malicious and not just someone trying to see if they really can edit this thing, I will go straight to an "only warning". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Uw-socksuspect vs. Socksuspectnotice

In which cases would you deploy {{subst:Uw-socksuspect}} (from 2008) rather than the "more-to-the-point notification" {{subst:Socksuspectnotice}} from 2006? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Even though I am not an expert at this distinguishing templates thing, I have an opinion that Uw-socksuspect is more hard-on firm warning, while Socksuspectnotice is more informational and not as hard-on firm. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there really no 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages?!

As per the title – Is there really no 'user warning' template for editing other people's User pages (in violation of WP:NOBAN)?! An IP just edited my User page, and I was surprised that I couldn't find a 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages to put at the IP's Talk page... So, should a template for this be created? (Or is there already one, and I just missed it?) P.S. The message I left at the IP's Talk page can be found here if anyone is interested in using that as the basis for a new 'uw' template... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, since the IP edits made a pig's ear of the top of your user page, the "userpage vandalism" warning {{uw-upv}} could have been appropriate: Noyster (talk), 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, yeah, that one was listed over on the right-side of the WP:UWT page. I just missed it. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: It depends upon what they actually did, but there's plenty of choice. Considering only the level 1 templates, we have: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} {{subst:uw-test1}} {{subst:uw-delete1}} {{subst:uw-notcensored1}} {{subst:uw-harass1}} {{subst:uw-npa1}} {{subst:uw-defamatory1}} most of which continue to level 2 and beyond. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was looking for a 'uw' template specific to mucking about with Userpages – and {{uw-upv}} would have been the best one for that specifically. (P.S. As an aside, I've subsequently figured out who was behind the edits to my Userpage, and I'm pretty sure they were deliberate and not accidental...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

uw-editsummary for mobile users?

{{uw-editsummary}} has a screenshot which is not applicable to the mobile users. Is there a similar template for mobile users? utcursch | talk 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No template for misrepresenting sources?

There are templates about OR and POV that tell users to use sources, but almost daily I revert users, mostly IPs or new users, who either change the content keeping the same source, or who do insert a source but in articles where there already is one main source to follow (mainly lists where the consensus is that all data builds on main source). It would be very useful to have a template for not using sources correctly. These edits are not intended as vandalism, and templates telling them to "use sources" would little sense. Given how common this is, I'd hope to see a new template. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Uw-preview}}

Change:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

To:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Comment

Adding a visual aid will help editors understand the issue better, especially new and first time users. This same idea is used for the "Not using edit summary" template ({{uw:editsummary}}). - ^theWOLFchild 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that you would want a visual aid to help editors understand the issue better. However, the semi-protection request seems to be not appropriate in this case, because you are autoconfirmed and can edit semi-protected articles. But you are right about the fact that you are wanting to give a consensus on the change you wanted to do, so I credit that you are trying to give a consensus to what you wanted to do. :) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it is (mostly) an improvement. But deduplicate It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving, probably the one above the image. I like that it provides a link to the help desk since this template (probably) is mostly to low experience editors. —EncMstr (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought template editor privileges were needed to change a template, that's why I posted the edit request. The duplicate wording was by mistake, I have fixed it now. I really don't see this as controversial and if I can make the change myself, then I'll just go ahead and do that. - ^theWOLFchild 09:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, only templates with the pink lock require template editor or admin privileges. Some templates are not protected at all and can be edited by anyone, including IPs. The templates {{Uw-editsummary}} and {{Uw-preview}} are semi-protected, just like any other article that is semi-protected. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I need to always show preview too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

uw-unsourced templates should suggest article talk page, not user talk page

Hi - the template {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} should ask people to leave a question at the article talk page, i think.... 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

I agree completely. In fact I think this should apply to most of the templates. Jeh (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, on both counts. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternately I think it should be more clear that questions relating to article content are best left at the article's Talk page while more 'general-purpose' questions might be best directed to the editor who left the comment. But I certainly get enough talkback due to templating editors that a significant amount of the time I end up recommending that if they disagree with my feelings they can raise the matter at the article's Talk page. In an ideal world it would be nifty if you could be auto-pinged if someone followed up on a Talk page notice you'd left by starting a discussion at the related article, but I realize that's wishful thinking. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am getting auto-pings whenever someone mentions my username in a discussion somewhere. I don't think I did anything to activate this functionality; it began spontaneously around August 2015 according to the log at Special:Notifications. However, there are controls for the kinds of notices on the Notifications tab of your preferences. On the topic of article talk vs. user talk, I completely agree that article specific discussion should occur on the article's talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If your username is mentioned (correctly) then you get pinged, but that only works if they mention your username. DonIago (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

uw-hoax wording

{{uw-hoax}} contains the line "Usually, hoaxes will be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created.", which seems an odd point to make - telling the hoaxer that Wikipedia doesn't always catch hoaxes straight away, which could easily be read as a challenge to hoax more subtly next time.

User:Everymorning scrupulously added the "usually" in 2014, rightly observing that "Hoaxes will be caught" is not factually accurate. But I think we can probably lose the whole sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not replace the sentence with "Hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion"? The idea is no doubt to convey that we don't keep hoaxes any longer than it takes to spot them: Noyster (talk), 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you link it to G3, as in speedy deletion. We shouldn't expect the perp to search through what is a rather large page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Add templates for poorly sourced content?

I was thinking about some warning templates for poorly sourced content. I did not think {{uw-unsourced1}} (and above) or {{uw-disruptive1}} (and above) was not as suitable for specifically telling about poorly sourced content, so I was trying to build up some draft templates at User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates. I am still not sure exactly the sentences to put in for those uw-poorlysourced templates, but I do know that there should be information specific to poorly sourced content. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have is a start, but my suggestion would be taking the unsourced templates verbatim and simply updating them to reflect the fact that the content added is poorly (maybe include unreliably?) sourced rather than entirely lacking in sources. A link to WP:RS should certainly be included, at least on the lower-level notices. Happy to help out with this though my time is somewhat limited for the next week or so. DonIago (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Doniago, feel free to edit in that part of the userspace, if you wish. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have changed much of my templates, thanks to your advice. If you are satisfied with my User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates page, then you may convert these templates into each separate Uw-poorlysourced template. If not, you may like to reword each template to suit your feeling of general new-user/IP understanding. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and even Help:Referencing for beginners is far too much information to passing along in a level 1 warning. You can't expect newcomers to read walls upon walls of text (WP:TLDR), when in most cases they just didn't know how to add references, or that they needed to. There are many templates that need to be simplified, but for this one we have a nice place to send newbies: WP:INTREF. For inline citations, send them to WP:INTREF2 (we could come up with better shortcuts), and for reliable sources we have WP:INTREF4. The other major advantage here is this guide includes demonstrations on how to do these things using VisualEditor, which can make adding references substantially easier. I've been working with some other folks on these simplified Intro guides, and eventually we hope to send all links about referencing to Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor, but we can't do that yet because VisualEdtior is not an option for anonymous users on desktop yet. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note also there is the general notice {{uw-refimprove}}, although it suffers from the same problem of linking to overly bloated policy and guideline pages. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3 and User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4 now by the way. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC

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.

---

Do you think there should be Uw-poorlysourced1 to Uw-poorlysourced4 templates? The drafts that I had prepared before this specific discussion are User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3 and User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - as nominator. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Opposes

Further discussion

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.

Proposed wording change for {{Uw-3rr}} template.

The current template has a line in it saying "Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing." I think it makes more sense to say "you being blocked from editing" instead of "your being blocked from editing." Music1201 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's correct English. Maybe it's not correct American, though. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Why use either? "Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing." sounds more straightforward to me. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Those involved in edit wars may be blocked from editing." fredgandt 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Uw-refimprove parameters

The documentation for {{Uw-refimprove}} says that it supports an optional second parameter of "additional text" to add to the message displayed. However it doesn't -- any such parameter is now ignored. It woulfd be easy enough to add -- shall I? or should the doc be changed to remove this? The doc really should match the template one way or the other. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Add it. Many of the other uw- templates support this, so I see no reason that this one shouldn't. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done DES ^(talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Time to deprecate Template:Uw-patrolled?

What is the point of Template:Uw-patrolled? The instructions at WP:NPP say Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later. In any case this is a voluntary project; if an editor wants to (for example) add categories to a brand new article but doesn't wish to mark it as patrolled, why does that necessitate a warning template? It seems to me that this template has no basis in policy and should be deprecated. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ETA: Relevant previous discussion here. Pinging template creator @Fuhghettaboutit:. VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ETA #2: The message in the template changed substantially early on in the template's history, here. Not sure why the change in tone was considered beneficial, but it seems to have carried through to present day. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I get a little miffed when reminded to mark pages as patrolled when I'm deliberately not marking them because I want other reviewers to review the pages. Is there a way to see how often the template is being used? - MrX 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I do think the template serves a function, though it seems to have spent part of its life geared toward something I did not intend, or at least left out vital information to make it a useful (to both relevantly inform when placed, and when to use). It was intended at new new pages patrollers, doing approximately complete jobs, but allowing duplication of efforts by failing to mark the page as patrolled, and thus they would remain yellow at Special:NewPages, so other would not be informed to skip the pages in question as already patrolled. Certainly this could use some documentation and changes in language to indicate 1) don't template the regulars 2) inform that it's geared toward new new pages patrollers 3) that not all pages should be marked patrolled and it's really only to inform those who may not know of the marking facility and why it is useful to do so. Unfortunaely, I never gave this a Z number, so it's very hard to tell whether it's been used appropriately, as intended, or gotten much use at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text to the way I think it should read, added a Z number for tracking, and will add documentation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, Can someone make a slight adjustment to this template please? Currently the "optional message" field in in the middle of the layout. Could we have it moved down to the bottom, just before the final "Thanks"...? Right now if you add a message, it seems oddly out of place. I've noticed this parameter located at the bottom, just before the final sign-off on other notification templates and it seems more appropriate. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the markup here and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Other editors may wish to discuss this suggestion below. fredgandt 23:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: "Consensus"? This is a minor, uncontroversial change. - ^theWOLFchild 01:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You're requesting instead of suggesting a change to the layout of a standardised message. I am not willing to perform the edit for you, as I would prefer to ask for my peers' opinion first. fredgandt 02:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:Uw-editsummary and you'll see what I mean. The optional message is (strangely) positioned in the middle, instead of at the end, like all the others. - ^theWOLFchild 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

New template

I wanted to suggest a new template for userspace, so I went ahead and created it. Please see Template:Uw-archive. I'm sure that if it's approved it will need additional documentation and possibly some changes, but have a look and let me know what you all think. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 08:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Such a template could find plenty of use, even with some admins; but anyone using it should be aware that the editors targeted, who ipso facto have substantial history at Wikipedia, might spurn it as "templating the regulars": Noyster (talk), 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with Noyster's caution about templating the regulars. It's an area that seems to raise tensions rapidly of the "your talk page is for communication - it needs to be usable" against "it's my talk page, I'll run it how I like" variety. A memorable case in Dec 2014 resulted in a user block, forcible archiving, a lot of acrimony even among the admins enforcing the archiving, and a lack of consensus. I'm not sure a template message would be the ideal tool to dial back the tensions. Bazj (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, but TTR is not a reason to not have a template... any template. I created it because I thought it was worthwhile. Are you guys suggesting it be deleted because you're afraid somebody might use it on somebody else and upset them? - ^theWOLFchild 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone who is NOT a regular would somehow have acquired a talk page >75k? Where would you use it? Why would you add a User Warning template on a user who isn't breaking any rules? Bazj (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've actually come across a few editors with lengthy talk pages who either didn't know about archiving or didn't attempt it because they didn't know how. Some guys with 10+ years of editing, posts from 2005, 150+ plus different sections, etc, etc. This is why I made the template. It's just a friendly "head's up", not a confrontational warning. You leave it and walk away. They can decide if they want to archive, and if they do, the links to the directions are right there. I don't see this as any different than {{uw-warn}}. I added that to several talk pages of editors with plenty of experience, and I never had a complaint - I've actually received a few 'thanks' for it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (btw - thanks for putting "not" in bold and caps... otherwise I might've missed it!

If it's not a warning, please don't give it a "uw-" name. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Even simple "notices" such as {{uw-warn}} have a "uw-" name. - ^theWOLFchild 01:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that we already have {{utverylong}}, which is simpler and much less confrontational. Observe:{{utverylong}} Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the nonstandardized archive template still exists at Template:uw-archive. I've included at several pages and templates for reference. Personally, I wouldn't flinch if we went into a discussion about whether this template should be deleted, but I feel that, if it exists, it should have been at least integrated with the other single-notice templates. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

For housekeeping purposes:

• Template:uw-archive
• Template:uw-archive/doc
• Template:Single notice links (updated to include it)
• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (updated to include it)
• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates (updated to include it)

And just to clarify, the fact that the template is nonstandardized, and per WP:DTR, I personally lean toward removing this template. If a user's talk page is seriously getting too long, it's their business. We have some articles at 500K and no notice on the talk about splitting them up. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus for adding A7 to Uw-hasty

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has added boldly added [12] A7 to Uw-hasty, which I don't believe is supported by consensus for good reason. WP:A7, a part of our speedy deletion policy, does not require waiting 10 (or 15 minutes) before tagging articles for speedy deletion, and there are good reasons for this. I'm concerned that editors using this template to warn other users are dispensing bad advice as if it were policy. A7 should be removed from this template until there is clear consensus to include it.- MrX 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, think tis is a good move. I normally decline to delete A7s if the tagging was done less than 10 minutes after the article was created. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are also reviewing speedy deletion nominations within ten minutes of creation, then that makes sense, but you're probably not. There are simply some articles that it is clear have no hope from the very beginning. For example, autobiographies that are repeatedly recreated with the same content. This template should not reflect something that is inconsistent with policy, just because a couple of editors think the policy should be otherwise. - MrX 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DESiegel Warning users based on your preference rather than on policy... please!?!? If a change is going to happen then WP:CSD#A7 needs to change before {{uw-hasty}}. Bazj (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion of this at WT:CSD at various times in the past, and a sizable number of the commentators there seem to agree that holding off on A7 tagging is a good practice. I have suggested making it mandatory -- to the level that repeatedly tagging too soon become a blockable offense. Obviously i wouldn't do that without clear consensus in advance. but this is not an out-of-the-blue new idea. DES ^(talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A "sizeable number of the commentors" is, I assume, not quite consensus. It would be helpful to have links to any such recent discussions. - MrX 03:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When, for whatever reason, you're trying to assess a user's behaviour, you see a {{uw-hasty}} on their talk page, how would you tell whether it was motivated for a breach of policy (speedy A1/A3) or a breach of etiquette (speedy A7). I don't dispute that waiting before tagging A7 may be more courteous, but it doesn't merit slapping the user with a warning that could be misinterpreted by other editors. WSC's suggestion below of a timer-tag fixes both ends of this issue very neatly. Bazj (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't include Unlike A1 or A3, A7 isn't something that you can fix by adding to the article, since it's a problem with the subject. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: that is factually incorrect. Unlike notability, A7 eligibility is dependent on the article containing a plausible assertion of significance. It is trivial to add this to an A7-candidate about a notable subject. VQuakr (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is frequently a very good idea to hold off on A7 for a brand-new article. Is there a way we can communicate the suggestion that A7 shouldn't always be applied instantaneously after article creation without running afoul of the policy concerns that MrX points out? VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a good compromise. If we assume that this template will be mostly used with inexperienced new page patrollers, then the suggestion to delay tagging an article A7 would seem to be good one.- MrX 21:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Include (also related discussion) per my reasoning here. Adam9007 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary. People would use good judgement, some A7 worthy articles would be tagged as that almost immediately and others would sit for a while. "xxxx is a 17 year old student at yyyy best known as our High school's prom Queen" would merit an A7 PDQ. "xxxx is 17 year old student at yyyyyy and our High school's prom Queen" might if left a few minutes gain the sentence "Best known for her career as a child actress playing aaaa in bbbbb." From from the tagging I've seen this sort of change is necessary. However we also need the appropriate technology. We need new pages to be NoIndex until patrolled, and I'd like to see time delayed deletion tags. These would be much like existing deletion tags, but only admins and patrolllers could see them, and if the article was edited again the tag would "lapse" and never become a live edit. That way the newpages could be processed and checked for attack pages as fast as they come in, but people submitting new articles would encounter a more credible process that didn't reject their work too fast to have seriously considered it or so fast that the crucial "best known for her Olympic Gold in 2012" didn't get time to be added. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of an automated fix that would prevent the issue arising rather than requiring that users be admonished for lack of courtesy. In a similar vein, Special:NewPages contains, at the head,a list of suggested start points, "Yellow highlights indicate pages that have not yet been patrolled. Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. Other options: 1 hour • 1 day • 5 days • 10 days • 15 days." Could a "15 minutes" option be added and made the default start point? Bazj (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include: If someone believes a page was hastily tagged for A7, they should leave personal message on the tagger’s talk page, explaining why in that case the tagging was hasty. Adding A7 to the templated message creates a false impression that the personal opinion of some editors has been enshrined in policy. IMO even MrX’s compromise wording may create confusion over policy: A better compromise might be “Some editors believe that pages should not be tagged for significance (CSD A7) moments after creation” or “In some cases pages should not be tagged for significance (CSD A7) moments after creation.” —teb728 t c 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Include We shouldn't be hasty because we don't need to be hasty. There is no harm to the project by keeping such a page up for another 15 minutes or so - it ain't like copyright violations, attack pages, or spam, which do real damage. BTW, I once saw a page speedied which was about a pro-football player but the article neglected to mention this. This is exactly why waiting is a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the language in the level one templates

I have seen some people tinkering with the language of the level one templates, and I undone most of these changes based on testing done by the WMF. I am not necessarily opposed to changing the language the templates, though I do think we should have broader discussion here first. Any agreed changes should be done across all similar templates. The link to the testing is Meta:Template A/B testing/Results, and the link to the previous RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version

There is no consensus for the proposal. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (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.

---

I suggest creating one made for visual editor as the editing summary box is in a different location then the source editors (the one this template was more or less based off of) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

Support as proposer Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Tentative: if I understand correctly that the idea is to create a version of {{Uw-editsummary}} that shows where edit summaries go in the Visual Editor interface instead of the standard edit window, presumably to be used when the recipient’s edits are tagged VE, that sounds like a good idea. I don’t use VE myself, but I can imagine someone who does being confused by the illustration of an unfamiliar or irrelevant-seeming form. @Zppix, please expand on the above proposal, providing some rationale, so people don’t have to guess what this is actually about.—Odysseus1479 04:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, if I understand the proposal correctly. Sounds like a good idea. The visual editor does indeed handle adding edit summaries in a different way than the wikitext editor does. APerson (talk!) 05:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Somewhat support: If the proposal is indeed what Odysseus is saying, this does seem like a good idea. Might be worth it to add as a parameter to the existing template though. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Unnecessary duplication. There is no need for a VE version of this page: these messages are used on user talk pages, where pages are displayed exactly the same whether people use VE or not; and since VE is not enabled for that namespace, the editing interface does not differ either. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, assuming Odysseus1479's clarification is correct. IMHO, this template does a fine job already. And, I don't think edit summaries work differently in VE; there is text box in both cases (VE and SE) in which the user enters text. We can add a VE screenshot to the existing template; but I suggest bearing in mind the 80-20 rule. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Zppix, which template are you talking about? APerson (talk!) 16:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary needed uw Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

uw-ewsoft biteyness

The {{uw-ewsoft}} template (described by Twinkle as a "softer wording for newcomers") opens by saying hello and immediately telling the user that they "appear to be engaged in an edit war", which - in a message to a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia jargon - sounds quite bitey, defeating some of the point of a "soft" warning.

I suggest tweaking "You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary..." to "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary..." and expanding "on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing" to "on Wikipedia this is known as edit warring and is usually seen as obstructing". Any thoughts? --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, I wholeheartedly agree with the suggested change. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

I agree; another reason to explain edit warring as a ‘term of art’ here is that there appears to be a common public misconception that it includes what’s elsewhere called flaming or similar hostile talk-page interactions that belong instead under the rubrics of WP:NPA or WP:BATTLE.—Odysseus1479 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. "Elsewhere" is little too generic. At least in IMDb, edit warring is defined as any form of tug-of-war reverting, be it hostile or friendly. (In Wikipedia, hostility is needed. Friendly remedial editing is actually encouraged.) I've seen "edit warring" used in Wikia too, but because bullying the newcomer is the norm there, I couldn't work out a definition. (They revert newcomers just because!)

Oh, did forget to mention that I agree too? Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Have gone ahead and made the change. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

define "genre" in template:uw-genre2

Hello all- Does anyone know if the term "genre", as it appears in the above-linked template message, has a specific WP-related meaning, or is it purely general? For example, if I encounter a one-issue user who is making the same, unsourced change to many infoboxes relating to one subject (in this case historic battles), would this subject be an example of what the template intends with "genre"? Thanks in advance for any info. Eric ^talk 14:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eric: It's mainly used in connection with arts, principally music; see music genre. We get people who will edit the article about an album, and in the {{infobox album}}, alter the |genre= parameter to what they perceive to be "correct", others then alter it back - or even to something else again. Some of these can be very petty - "it's not ambient grunge, you idiot; it's grunge with ambience". But it is also relevant to books (literary genre, {{infobox book}}), where edit-warring is somewhat less of a problem.

I don't see how it might be relevant to battles, unless we assign "genres" (as in Napoleonic, trench-warfare, etc.) to battles. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ah, thanks for the clarification! Should we add some indication of that in the template message text, maybe à la (music, literature, art)? The word genre currently links to the wp article Genre. Eric ^talk 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Uw-disruptive3 wording

I think the wording in Template:Uw-disruptive3, if an article is linked, is confusing - "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at (insert article here)." This wording makes it seem like the user has stopped editing disruptively at that article but is editing disruptively at other articles, but often, disruptive editors could possibly continue to edit at the same article. Any suggestions on alternate wording? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Please stop editing disruptively, as you did at..." DonIago (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this one. --Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Another alternative: "Please stop making disruptive edits, such as those you made on ______" Eric ^talk 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a little better than my own suggestion, which may not have entirely addressed the underlying concern. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

In Template:Uw-spamublock, the version used for when talk page access is disabled does not mention the guide to appealing blocks. Can that please be added to the message? (If I could edit it, I would change the last sentence to something along the lines of "To do so, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.") —MRD2014 T C 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

The version of Template:Uw-uhblock that is used when talk page access is also disabled does not mention anything about the talk page access being revoked or the guide to appealing blocks. After the first sentence in the second paragraph, please add "Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

—MRD2014 T C 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

The version of Template:Uw-vaublock that is used when talk page access is also disabled does not mention anything about the talk page access being revoked or the guide to appealing blocks. After the first sentence in the second paragraph, please add "Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

—MRD2014 T C 19:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No edit required. {{uw-vaublock}} gets the relevant text from {{uw-uhblock}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Added optional diff parameter to no personal attack templates

I added an optional named parameter, diff to the no personal attacks series ({{Uw-npa1}}, {{Uw-npa2}}, {{Uw-npa3}}, {{Uw-npa4}}, {{Uw-npa4im}}). It allows including the URL of the diff containing the personal attack. To fit the flow of the text, most of the diff links only render if the page is also specified. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment removal template

I am not very familiar with templates. If a user blanks a section you create on a talk page like at special:diff/731788343 what would be the appropriate template to use to warn the user not to do this?

I can't remember the name of the rule but I'm pretty sure it is against policy to do that. Ranze (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's not a user blanking material on their own talk page, Template:uw-delete1 may apply. Essentially, users shouldn't delete material without providing a rationale in the edit summary. I'm not going to speak to this specific instance. DonIago (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of uw-tdel

I'm a bit surprised I'm not seeing {{uw-tdel1}} and {{uw-tdel2}} listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Is there any reason they aren't included? Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've added them now. I hope no-one objects. Uanfala (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits to Template:Uw-uhblock-double for more better results

1. I removed reference to trolling. When dealing with trolls, avoid the T-word. That just gets them excited and encourages more trolling.
2. The phrase "nor...ever tolerated" is untrue. Regrettably, we tolerate a lot of disruptive behavior. I change it to "nor...ever allowed". Just because we let people get away with disruption for a while before blocking them doesn't mean that it is allowable.
3. The last sentence was rather convoluted and thus harder to read and understand. The key to these messages actually working is that they should be understandable and over-polite. So, "below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first" became "below this notice. For best results please read the guide to appealing blocks first." [13]

Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Using a template triggered an alert notification

After removing a minor instance of vandalism by a new IP user, I left a message on his talk page using {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|article}}. I've done this many times before, but unusually this time I found it also triggered this alert notification to myself:

You mentioned yourself on 101.181.232.116 in "101.181.232.116". Hello, I'm Bahudhara. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ma .

This seems to be an unintended consequence of changes somewhere else. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Same here, having used {{uw-delete1}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_notifications --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Conversation in article talk space

I propose that references to Article in the documentation for {{uw-chat1}} etc should be to Talk:Article, eg:

What to type

What it makes

{{subst:uw-chat1|Talk:Article}}

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Article are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks.

This gives "... talk pages such as Talk:Article ...", which makes more sense than "... talk pages such as Article ...", because the latter does not link to a talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There are others that should also have a similar change, for the same reason, eg:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates#Editing of others' talk page contributions without due cause
• Wikipedia:Template_messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates - uw-upv, uw-subst

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some new form messages for NPP

Hello all. I've started to develop some new form messages for new editors, that I hope will be more friendly and informal than the default Twinkle messages. They're listed on my user subpage. I'd be really keen to hear what people think about them and if they have any suggestions for improvements.

I'm not proposing to submit these as official templates (not for the foreseeable future, anyway), but I hope that some people might find them useful. Blythwood (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere I like the tone of these messages, a more friendly way than the "official" templates of reaching out to the good-faith and reasonably literate new editors whom we want to encourage. I shall certainly be plagiarising them: Noyster (talk), 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I just created a new uw template

I just created Template:Uw-1rr because I couldn't find a general template I could use with 1RR-restricted reversions. (I based it off of Template:Uw-3rr.) The thing is, I'm not sure I went about creating it the right way. Is there an official process for this kind of stuff? Does it need to be approved or anything like that? I've never created a template for Wikipedia before. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything technically wrong with your new template. But I am puzzled as to its proper use. It mentions:

while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule.

I don't recall ever encountering the WP:1RR rule. Even reading that guideline sheds little light. Then there is the much more mysterious WP:0RR (zero revert rule). Frankly, both of these smack of entrapment. Maybe you can explain the logic behind all of this? —EncMstr (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@EncMstr: The 1RR rule is mainly used in articles under ArbCom sanctions, such as, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict (see WP:ARBPIA). As for the sentence you quoted, that's a modified version of what {{uw-3rr}} says (one revert instead of three). The reason I decided to keep it is because someone can continue to revert other people (aka edit-war) and only revert after the 24 hours have expired, which means it wouldn't be a 1RR violation. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Uw-thumb1 .. uw-thumb4

I question the creation/addition of these templates:

• The use of thumb may contradict WP:INFOBOXIMAGE, but it's a big step to interpret its use as deliberately disruptive.
• Uploading an image on Commons, using the UploadWizard, the uploader is presented with a link to copy & paste which includes the thumb parameter.
• Is there consensus for this being a 4-step violation?

In short, this series of cautions presumes, without any basis in policy, that an occasional contributor of images, following the guidance given on commons, is deserving of a block after their 4th upload & use of that image. I propose removing the templates from this page & nominating for deletion.

ping Zackmann08 as author Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose — The thumb syntax is incorrect for infoboxes, producing the wrong visual result, so it is disruptive if they keep doing it after being told that and informed of the correct way to add images to infoboxes. If they ignore or fail to learn from polite requests to use the correct syntax, that seems to be a WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT type of issue, which can often result in a block. It's not a case of deserving a block after 4th use of an image, but after ignoring or failing to respond to requests to use the correct syntax. Innocent mistakes are fine, failing to learn from them is not. Murph9000 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Murph9000, checking my upload history on commons I see my last upload before today was over 7 years ago. Do you really think I should be required to know that the code snippet given to me authoritatively by commons is wrong? I still don't see anywhere that it was agreed this error is a 4-steps-to-the-exit offence. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Cabayi: The syntax is wrong, repeatedly using it is disruptive (as it does not produce the correct visual result and requires other editors to fix the mistake). Do you really think it is reasonable for someone to ignore recent polite requests to use the correct syntax? No reasonable editor should be going past level 1 or level 2 of this in a short timescale, and those that keep doing it are disruptive editors. It is extremely useful to have a standard template to inform people of the problem and educate them in the correct way of doing it. People who persist in this will be receiving up to level 4 warnings whether or not this template exists, but this at least gives them a specific standard message with good advice. There is clear consensus to support blocking people who persist in incompetent or disruptive editing after polite and fair warnings and education about it. If Commons is giving out bad advice, that should be fixed. I do think you should be required to know that the advice given by Commons is incorrect if you have recently received a polite message about it which both informs you of the problem and includes the correct advice. Murph9000 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Murph9000, none of the 4 warnings mentions that commons has it wrong. Given that most folks think of Wikipedia as one coherent whole, not as a bunch of bickering fiefdoms, it seems more likely they'd also assume the advice they're receiving TODAY at commons is more up-to-date than the advice they received here on enwiki last week.

  Rather than marching users towards the exit for making the wrong choice from conflicting instructions, and pointlessly alienating them, wouldn't it make more sense to have a bot silently fix the error? Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (Template creator) - @Cabayi: Thanks for bringing this up. I obviously disagree as the template creator. My main note is that I do NOT think that someone who has the occasion miss-edit is worthy of a block, but repeated offenders may be. To be more specific... If you have a user who makes this mistake once, then a month or two later makes it again, the again a month later, etc.. That is not someone I think is worthy of blocking. The editor this template is intended to "target" (for lack of a better word) is the editor who makes these same edits day after day. At which point they really are becoming disruptive. It is meant for the editor who has been warned about this issue multiple times and has flat out ignored it. Editors who simply make the mistake, no problem!!! AGF and just let them know "Hey, here's what you did wrong". But the editor who just continues to ignore the correction and do it wrong day after day... They deserve the warning and eventual block if they continue to make the disruptive edits. Hope that makes sense. Looking forward to hearing other opinions. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewording

I would like to see a sentence in {{Uw-notenglish}} changed from We invite you to translate it into English into We invite you to get it translated into English by a competent translator, not relying on machine translation. The current wording practically invites the contributor of an article in another language to stick the piece through a machine translator, which of course we discourage: Noyster (talk), 11:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

A case in point: a new article was created in another language [14], then the creator took up the invitation to translate it into English, leaving us with this: Noyster (talk), 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What in the name of William Webb Ellis does "it was practically a finals decided his magic foot Cristian Onofrei managed to pass in 19 points in an essay, two transformations, and four penalty kicks" mean? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should not facilitate machine translations, but the wording might be too difficult for the intended recipient. How about We invite you to translate it into proper English, but/so please do not add an automated translation. (that last bit is inspired by {{Not English}}). --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:KISS definently applies here, the message should be kept as simple as possible because the person reading will probably be relying on machine ranslation just to read the message. I personally find it better to try an determine what language they have posted in and use the appropriate template from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages but I know not everyone goes to the trouble to do that, and not every single language is listed there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly a better idea. Is it possible to connect a Contrib-xx1 template to {{Not English}} once the language parameter has been defined, like the user notification source code that appears in deletion templates? --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox, I hadn't known of these templates but they convey a quite different message: instead of "Please translate it into English or see it deleted" these templates say "Go away and put it into your own language's Wikipedia" where it may well have come from originally. Shouldn't we aim to be consistent and agree which message, if either, we wish to send in these cases?: Noyster (talk), 09:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Anonblock hard

There's an editor who keeps on altering the wording of Template:Anonblock hard, without discussing it; they claim that "it doesn't need discussion". There are several IPs involved, but they may all be the same actual person. NQ (talk · contribs) has suggested "block evasion" in an edit summary, so this IP may be a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating new UWs

Hello! I decided I wanted to add some new uw- templates for specific situations I had not seen templates for, but have come across before. Is there a specific process for making uw templates or do I simply create the pages and start using them? As well, are there any suggestions for better wording in my templates? Here are the templates I have made so far:

• uw-citereplace1, 2, 3, 4, and 4im. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We already have templates that cover any unexplained removal of content, so these seem unecessary to me. Also "cited" is wiki-speak argon, which should be avoided in templates that are probably going to be used mostly to correct new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about how to use warnings

Hi All - is there a place I can read about how to properly use warnings? I assume warnings should generally progress from 1->5, but when I see first edits from a new account that are clearly and purposely vandalism - not in good faith - my inclination is to go right to 3 or 4, especially if the article is a BLP. Anyway I'm sure there are guidelines somewhere and I'd love to see them. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You're looking for this: Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ramaksoud2000: exactly what I was looking for, thank you! -Darouet (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)