Template talk:Welcome-COI

Template broken

The talkpage link [[User talk:{{{1|{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}}}}|my talk page]] is not working ie. User_talk:Carolinejones_candi, if someone could fix it, thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did you place the template Mlpearc? Whatever script you used is the cause of the problem, and not the template itself. The script passed a defined parameter |1= which forced it to omit your name instead of using the default REVISIONUSER (which would have put your name in). I can make a workaround in the template, but this is something that should really just be fixed in the script. Let me know which script, and I'll see if I can get it fixed there.

If you are posting these as part of ACC, may I suggest using my WikiLove script (User:Technical 13/Scripts/ACC WikiLove.js)?

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Technical 13: good to see ya :) anyway I placed it via Twinkle. (I'll add your welcome to my list :) ) Mlpearc (open channel) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see what I can do with the Twinkle people to get it fixed correctly... In the mean time, I've added 112 bytes of code that should prevent the problem from being evident to new users (this is what is really important). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx

Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors

I think there needs to be an additional statement about WP:PAID, and how such a disclosure should be made if it applies to the user. --Drm310 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one appears to have noticed this, so I went ahead and made the edit myself. The wording is exactly the same as that used in {{uw-coi}}. --Drm310 (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I would like to make a suggestion for additional wording in this welcome template, based on my experience as an AFC reviewer. A large number of AFC drafts submitted from user sandboxes are COI drafts, and are very often by editors whose only reason for coming to Wikipedia in the first place is to publicize something, themselves, their company, their band, etc., possibly because of a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, or possibly because they in good faith think that their band or their company is notable, when it is not. Since they have submitted the draft (in the cases that I see) in draft space, it never gets accepted. What I would like to see added is wording that encourages such an editor to contribute to Wikipedia by editing other articles and to learn about Wikipedia by editing it. I hope that this encouragement isn't considered too utopian in hoping that editors who started off with a self-seeking agenda may become constructive editors. In practice, they typically try for a while to improve a draft that will never pass notability, and then become discouraged and go away. Can we encourage them to stay as general editors rather than as single-purpose accounts? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Do you have some suggested phrasing? I think this is already pretty wordy message, so I'd advise keeping it as short as possible. --Drm310 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Since relisting, rough consensus not to move. Consider a template merge and a coordinated Twinkle update to reflect a suggested other course of action, or since it appears that there's no strong opposition to repurpose these templates into user warning templates, that would require a different move at another time. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– I believe this should be done because, in the Template:Welcome-COI's current form, it seems to imply that the editor is or seems to be a paid editor. Template:Welcome-COI-acc seems to apply moreso to the general COI people, those who don't edit to get paid, but rather edit just because they feel such-and-such should have a page (ex. their grandfather; the company they work for when they're not getting paid to edit it, etc.). This way, we would have two templates, one for obvious paid editors and one for those who aren't or don't seem to be. It appears nicer and less bitey to new users when we don't seem to imply something they're not. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Sam Sailor 12:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've notified both the Wikipedia talk:Twinkle and the Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee pages. Twinkle uses one of these templates and must be notified if anything major happens to it, and the Welcoming Committee was notified because both templates are welcome templates. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not the solution to the problem presented, as I see it. One alternative option would be to merge the two templates together, possibly by having the difference in text above triggered to appear or disappear using a new parameter. Another option would be to have these templates better conform to the Template:Uw template series. (In my opinion, these templates seem to be more like "user warning" templates rather than "welcome" templates since their wording assumes that the template placer has already noticed an issue with the warned editor, so thus it's a warning.) Either way, moving these templates to their proposed new titles seems more cosmetic than anything, and as the nominator outlined, this change would require a lot of behind-the-scenes work with Twinkle, so we may as well get these proposed changes the best as possible to avoid having to update Twinkle multiple times. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be open to that course of action. We'd still have to update Twinkle, possibly, to allow for the new parameter, though. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Steel1943's comment seems to be the best course. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewording Userificatin

Regarding "If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.", wouldn't it be better to direct them to undeletion? They would get a faster response. Something like "If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to make a request and it will be copied to your user page.". Jumpytoo Talk 02:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newusers with obvious COI who have yet to edit

It seems that this template could also be helpful to new users who might have a COI but have yet to actually edit. There are sometimes questions at the Teahouse or Help Desk where new users ask whether they can edit an article about a subject they've clearly got a conflict of interest with. Many times these people are asking questions about articles someone else has created about them. Is there any way a parameter like the |newuser= one for {{Welcome-t}} could be added to this template so that the first sentence the template is changed to something more appropriate? Perhaps instead of "I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest." it could read as "I noticed that you have expressed interest in editing an article dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest." or something along those lines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]