This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Template index. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Quite often I see contributions like this. It looks to be in good faith, but it has two issues, 1) its not NPOV and 2) its not sourced. It would be really great if there was a template that let me say both those things at once. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Previously when I have encountered this problem, I have just selected which ever template seems to represent the greater violation. Also I generally use Twinkle to warn (unless I'm Huggling). Twinkle allows you to add free text onto the end of a warning and I believe most templates support linking; you can also do this manually using an appropriately placed pipe symbol when placing the template code. Whilst a combined template is a good idea on one hand, how many do we create? There are a great many potential combinations. Pol430talk to me21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The thing is more than other issues NPOV and Unsourced go hand in hand. Additional messages would be OK, but I'm not 100% on the wording - and would then have to save them somewhere (a user template would be great for this :p). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, unfortunately, I personally, remain unsold on the idea of combined warnings. I feel it could lead to an unnecessary boom in the already voluminous uw-template collection. If you are going to warn about two policy infractions for one edit, why not just deliver two separate warnings that already exist—one after the other? Pol430talk to me23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That wouldbe taken care of with a {{Multiple warnings}}. However I do agree that often it's best to pick an editor up on just the main point, to avoid muddying the message. (Hence my preference for simple warning templates.) RichFarmbrough, 12:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
UW-3rr
Warns about being blocked three four times, and only discussion once. Can we get a little more incisive on pushing the BRD message? RichFarmbrough, 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
So instead of
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Bush. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
There appears to be an edit war which you may be involved in, according to the reverts you have made on George Bush. Users who edit disruptively including breaking the three-revert rule may find themselves blocked.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors.
I made the changes that show 3rr in it's current light. I'm not adverse to toning down the block !threats; however, I feel the message should make it clear that continuing to edit war may result in a block without further notice. This notice is specifically aimed at violations of 3rr. The message should also maintain parity with other 'single issue warnings' in the UW-series; in so much as, it should serve to deliver a strong cease and desist warning. I feel the language you propose is more akin to an L2 message from the multi level templates and is not in-keeping with the faith assumption this warning intends to convey. Pol430talk to me20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm, what can I say, I'm a nice guy. But certainly I take your point about the strength of the message being important - and the imminence of a block. I'll try and revisit soon, unless someone beats me to it. RichFarmbrough, 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi! It looks like you got caught up in an edit war{{<includesafeludeonly}| a|l, and are breaking the three revert rule. To resolve the content dispute, it is best not to revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead use the article'[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pto work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. The best thing is to discuss it. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions get stuck, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.
It's a good idea not to edit war, not just because it doesn't solve anything but because edit warriors often get.
I've had a quick look again at the wording, and I entirely take your point about repeated use of the word 'block', although I have not yet been able (yet) to think of a suitable rewording. I'll have a think on it also.Pol430talk to me23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The current version is very watered-down. I don't think it will be effective for a certain subset of inexperienced users who also have a tendency to edit-war because they believe they are right. The previous warning "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." should be reinstated. Some more bolding to highlight key points of the text may be helpful as well. Dr.K.λogosπraxis07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did find the previous version quite effective at stopping newer editors from edit warring and instead engaging in discussion. See Goldgenie and its talk page as an example. Pol430talk to me11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We could re-instate the "do not... " warning.
I am not sure a plethora of bolding is a good idea. If points are not key they should be dropped - short and sweet.
Do you find this version less effective, or is it to early to say?
It would be instructive to try various versions, and measure which are effective.
I find the most effective messages are talk page messages that don't look like templates - a header and a single line or two lines of text.
(edit conflict) I agree. The old template was quite effective in many cases, in teaching new and inexperienced users that talking is preferable to being blocked. But even then there was a lot of resistance during a recent edit-war at Athens. The new template may not be so effective in such hard cases. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Rich: I think that the new template will not be as effective in the really hard cases. Have a look here. It took a page protection and an admin to stop this incident, in addition to the stronger template. If we had the watered-down version of the template I don't think it would have any real effect. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Point taken that the effectiveness of the revised version can not, yet, be judged. I'll have another think on it later and see what I can come up with—in respect of addressing both concerns—then publish it here - unless someone beats me to it Pol430talk to me12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Great. I'll wait to see your version. Rich just added a bolded statement that strengthens the template message. I also liked the "Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block." but, as I said, I can wait. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec x 2 of course) Note: the old version has 12 links, four bolded passages, three numbered points and an icon - that's twenty emphases, not counting the sig. That may be seen as "firm" but in general this sort of busyness detracts from the message. Also TLDR kicks in much earlier that we think.
In the example Dr.K. gives - it's a bit like saying "I had such a bad infection I had to use an extra large crystal AND antibiotics. The smaller crystal wouldn't have done the job." Just because the page protection and an admin stopped the incident, we can't draw any conclusion about the relative effectiveness of the two templates. Maybe the simpler version would have meant people felt less threatened, and hence more cooperative. RichFarmbrough, 12:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
I can only speak from personal experience, and not as a psychology expert, on the relative behavioural modification impact of the two templates on a new but aggressively edit-warring user. Based on my experience I found the old version of the template to have stopped quite a few edit wars cold in their tracks as compared to even older and milder templates. But I cannot back up this statement with official statistics due to time limitations. I think that the stronger version of the template has successfully minimised recidivist edit-warring tendencies. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
How about:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
It makes the points Dr.K covers but tones down the use of the word block. I have bolded points 1 and 2 because I feel it draws the eye to what is relevant, I have also created a version that shows these points in italics rather than bold if consensus is that bolding is too aggressive. You can view them side by side in my sandbox. Pol430talk to me12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks good. It avoids the redundancy of the older version but keeps the salient points. I think it would be as effective as the older version. Dr.K.λogosπraxis12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I sent Rich a TB but he has not responded yet, I will leave this up for another day to see if there is any further discussion and then make the change (by the admittedly smallest possible consensus of 2). Pol430talk to me10:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I never thought that designing a template would be so complex. One must strike a balance between deterrence and unnecessary repetition in the message of the template, while at same time being as kind as possible to the edit-warrior. It is a really interesting problem, but ideally one may need to have a degree in Applied Psychology specializing in behavioural modification to be able to really say that they can design a good warning template. Dr.K.λogosπraxis10:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I believe that the first part of this template's warning language is far too broad for a template concerning autobiographies. There is a deletion debate going on regarding Adeem Hashmi where an editor is referencing the language in this template as a justification to argue that an article about an Urdu poet who has been dead for ten years should be considered an autobiography. Surely, other templates concerning WP:COI and WP:NPOV should be used in such situations, and an autobiography template should be used only in situations where people have written articles about themselves. I appreciate the opinions of other editors more knowledgeable about such matters than I. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you, I think the language used in this template is misleading and needs to be tightened considerably. Would you like to make a suggestion here, on improved wording? Pol430talk to me18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
{{uw-username}} not accepting #1 as a reason parameter?
Just been having trouble at User talk:Septstars (corporate spam account). Despite supplying a reason, as both #1 and |Reason=, the subst'ed template kept generating the "no reason supplied" msgbox. Is this my finger trouble, out of sync docs, or a broken template? Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd guess the reason you're trying to provide contains an "=", so instead of interpreting it as unnamed parameter #1 Mediawiki is interpreting it as some parameter with a long, confusing name. Try |1= rather than |Reason=, as the latter does not exist. Anomie⚔16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a switch to this template that if enabled would change the wording in the second sentence? I've used this template in the past to let people know when they've incorrectly tagged a page (when I was doing NPP), but the phrase "declined to delete" implies that I'm an administrator, which I'm not. Perhaps a change of that wording to something like "removed the tag on" instead would be good in these cases. I'm no good with template syntax but if someone else could come along and do it, it would be great. Thanks! elektrikSHOOS17:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Coincidence - a couple of editors are working on a possible rewording of this now to include yours and other suggestions. You are rght however, template syntax is not everyone's cup of tea. We'll post back here when we have a suitable draft. --Kudpung (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Above is a copy and paste from the template talk page, which had not been redirected. Kudpung and I are currently working on some improvements to this template. Pol430talk to me11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Following the discussion here Kudpung and I have arrived at the following version:
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude>
New code re-instating original params but with revised wording. I don't think I have broken anything...
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion,{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{2|}}} | under criterion [[WP:CSD#{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] | {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{nocriterion|no}}}|yes|without specifying a [[WP:CSD|criterion for speedy deletion]]}}}} because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{3|}}} | {{{3}}} |}} Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude>
@Kudpung - when you say autosign, do you mean via twinkle? If so, I think this a coded into twinkle rather than the template. Pol430talk to me18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few kinds of messages, such as conflict of interest warnings, that are rarely used alone. For example, I often have to deliver such a warning after tagging a page for speedy deletion, which, if done using TW, also ensures that the user receives a welcome message. Thus, the "welcome" part of {{uw-coi}} is often redundant. I think such templates should have a welcome=no option, or alternatively, we could create a second class of templates without such messages. Feezo(Talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Feezo(Talk)23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are referring to the first line of Template:uw-coi 'Welcome to Wikipedia.' Then I agree that could be replaced with 'Hello' or 'Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. In terms of Twinkle posting welcome messages at the same time as other warnings, that would need to be discussed at Twinkle talk. Pol430talk to me13:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
To my eyes, the "Thank you" that tails many of the user warnings is borderline passive-aggressive. For one, it assumes that the user agrees with the message and will heed it (presumably what they're being thanked for.) For another, it heightens the impression that the user is being bureaucratically "processed" via a one-way communication. I would replace many or all uses of this with something that encourages interaction: for example, I usually end custom notifications with "Let me know if you have any questions, ~~~~ ". Feezo(Talk)05:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The 'Thank You' is an optional param (in most templates) and can be replaced with additional text (see template docs). I suppose Thank You was chosen because it seemed to be the most standardised ending for standardised templates. If you issue the template via Twinkle the 'Thank You' param is still apparent even if you add additional text (see here). I don't think it practical to change the ending of every uw-* template. Perhaps the good people at Twinkle can come up with a solution for, optionally, not including the 'Thank You' param when issuing a template via Twinkle. Pol430talk to me12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, are you proposing to do it for just single issue notices? Or all uw-* templates? I don't think there are many single issue warnings that end with thank you (I haven't checked). The multi level templates generally end in thank you for level 1 and level 2, whilst level 3 and 4 just end... I have no objections to "Let me know if you have any questions, ~~~~" replacing "Thank you" on single issue notices. I think single issue warnings should just end with a sig, and the multi templates seem fine as the are (the endings at least). In terms of practicality this is the complete list of all uw- templates, note there are 3 pages. Pol430talk to me12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The ones I'm looking at are {{uw-username}} and {{uw-coi}}, which I use with some regularity. It may be that "Thank you" is appropriate for some templates, and for many, e.g., 3rd and 4th level warnings, we shouldn't use either. Feezo(Talk)23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like {{Documentation}} would need to be changed too, since it makes reference to "Thank you" as the default text. Actually, that should be removed from the documentation in any case, since it's used on many templates that don't have the "Thank you" option. Feezo(Talk)05:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the standardised templates are more standardised than others, apparently... Anyhow, I have no objections to the changes you suggest. Pol430talk to me20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi all if there is someone who is looking for something to do, I would appreciate if someone synchronized all huggle templates with standardised see Template:Huggle for full list, templates use different syntax but content should be same, thank you Petrb (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Three revision limit.
«Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.»
I'm not sure what question you are asking, or comment you are making? The line you quote above is from the 3rr policy which features in the {{uw-3rr}} template. You seem to be confusing edits with reversions. Also that line makes it clear that making more than three reversions is almost always grounds for an immediate block which is very different to saying if you make three reversions you will always be blocked. By any measure, that line line of text is a feature of Wikipedia policy and was arrived at as a result of consensus. Pol430talk to me22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
What do we do if the edit is not recent? Also, what do I do if the content has not been restored (since I was not sure if the deletion was appropriate)? See here where I modified the wording manually (without actually changing the template). Here, I tried to create a modified version of the template. Any suggestions, please? ------01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It depends how old the edit in question is, and who made it. For example, if an IP editor made the edit, and it is 3 weeks old, it is quite likely that the person now using that IP address is not the same person that made the edit. If you are not sure the removal was appropriate—and don't want to revert the edit because of that—don't warn the user that made it. Generally templates are used to advise users of inappropriate recent changes, if the issue is more complex than that, just write them a normal message, on their talk page. Pol430talk to me17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
uw-selfrevert
As a community, we've been discussing how to make the site more welcoming to newcomers, and I think part of that may be making templated messages seem less cold and machine-like. With that in mind, I recommend changing the word "reverting" to "undoing" in Template:uw-selfrevert. While "revert" is a fairly common English word, it is a bit formal and somewhat smacks of Wikipedia jargon. "Undoing" is more likely to be understood easily and seems less pretentious. Thoughts? Kansan (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
'Reverting' is collective term whilst an 'undo' is a specific action on Wikipedia (see Help:Reverting). Templates should avoid confusing users who may not know any better; Therefore, I feel we should continue to disambiguate the two actions. Pol430talk to me22:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I frankly don't see how this could cause any confusion at all. I mean "undo" in the sense of what it means in plain English, not in terms of what it means in Wikipedia. (Regardless of Wiki jargon, the word "undo" would be completely accurate here.) In effect, such an edit that would provoke this warning would be the same as an undo (even if not done in the exact same way), and if somebody is new enough to warrant this warning, they won't know the difference, and surely won't become confused when they learn more about how Wikipedia works. Kansan (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that this article had been prodded a number of times, so I left a note on the latest prodders talk about only proposing once then going to AFD. I think this is the right place to get a PROD notice added to the uw- template group and maybe twinkle. Let me know if I'm in the wrong place. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why this is so complicated? All I want to do it report an IP address for vandalism. Just pretend you're a newbie and find this page with all its templates. --RatnimSnave (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It may be complicated for a newcomer, but then again, it's not everyday that newcomers become so involved in Wikipedia's inner processes, such as reporting vandals. In any case, I guess any suggestions you can make to simplify the task will be welcome. --uKER (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I've been working on a new user warning. It's a good faith notice for new editors who are likely to have violated WP:SOCK out of ignorance, not malice. It gives the new users a chance to get aware of the policy and cease the violations without dragging them into a stressful investigation. It has already received a bit of praise on WP:HELPDESK, so I think I'd let you see it as well and maybe help getting it operational. It's on my sandbox - feel free to edit it! All feedback will be appreciated. Thank you! Zakhalesh (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks good and useful. The only thing I'd change is maybe the phrase "Your editing habits" would sound better as "Your editing pattern". -- Ϫ21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You're free to move it into template space anytime, but as far as it becoming an accepted community norm that would depend on how many use it and for how long. You may want to add it to Wikipedia:User warning templates. -- Ϫ22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, a few more questions. First, it seems to screw up the user's sig if there's a space bar between the sig and the template ({{uw-agf-sock}} ~~~~). Also, should I mention this about somewhere else to get Twinkle to add it to their warning collection? Zakhalesh (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I edited the Uw-block template temporarily. A clean proposed text. Here's the text:
Due to your unacceptable contributions, you have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Any more unacceptable contributions and another block will be issued. Thank you.
These additional texts "Due to your unacceptable behavior" and "Any more unacceptable behavior and another block will be issued. Thank you." are come from Call of Duty Wiki's Block template. I refined "Due to your unacceptable behavior" into "Due to your unacceptable contributions".
--Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about the uw-creep series (1•2•3•4), especially Template:Uw-creep3. Labelling an editor as "creepy" isn't very civil, and per WP:NPA, an editor should always "[c]omment on the content, not on the contributor". I don't really have any complaint about Template:Uw-creep1 or Template:Uw-creep2 (although 2 is a bit brusque), but Template:Uw-creep3 really bugs me and so does the naming of the whole series.
Also, none of the templates define "creepiness". Template:Uw-creep1 says
“
It's important, though, to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be disquieted by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any malice, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.
”
This makes the issue sound more like (in)civility rather than creepiness. While the issue of "creepiness" is a serious one, I don't think these templates are quite fit to deal with it. The way I see it, creepiness as covered by these templates can go one of two ways: issues that can be covered by a harassment template (the first of which could be something like Template:Uw-creep1, and issues that warrant an immediate warning and/or block. Either way, though, they should not be labelled "creepiness" — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I took a stab at reworking {{Uw-creep3}} quite a bit, so let me know what you think. I agree that the use of the term "being creepy" is itself a bit of a personal attack, and a little too ambiguous of a term. Basically, if it's causing people stress, it is disruptive behavior, and so calling the editor "creepy" was replaced with calling the behavior disruptive.
I also slightly reworked {{Uw-creep4}} while I was at it, but that was just to bring its wording more in line with other Level 4 templates.
We probably should also consider renaming the set of templates, since "creep" is, as mentioned, a somewhat ambiguous negative term. Let's see if we can find a concise, neutral descriptive term for the behavior. I thought of "disruptive interaction", but it's a little ambiguous, and I also came up with "disruptive negative interaction", but both of them are a little long. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Good idea on the pagemoves and the renaming! I think I'm going to tweak the wording on {{uw-harass1}} to bring it a little more in line with the other level one warnings (i.e., by specifically saying one of the user's recent edits contained harrassing content, providing a link to the user's contributions, a link to the welcome page and possibly a link to relevant policy). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to create {{uw-harrass1}}, etc., redirects for people like me who can't spell "harass" :P Oh hey, now we finally have a series of uw-harass templates to go along with the {{uw-hblock}} template! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I updated {{uw-harass4im}} and {{uw-harass4}} using the {{uw4im}} and {{uw4}} templates to bring them fully in line with the other uw4 and uw4im templates. I have to log off for now, but when I get back I'll work on making the article parameter not show up if left empty for levels 1, 2 and 3. Cheers! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Functionality that would allow diffs
I just designed a functionality that would provide a diff for offending edits as long as you supplied the article name and the revisionid for the bad edit. (I'm going to go back for round two of wrestling with the parser functions when I'm actually more awake to try and figure out how to do it without having to supply the article. [I'm using the {{diff}} template, so all I need to do is supply the revisionid, but the way it's nested in the parser functions, you need to supply the page.])
Let's say this edit to my userpage was vandalism. The syntax for warning the editor with a diff would be {{subst:uw-vandalism1/sandbox|User:Cymru.lass|diff=416121022}}. This would give:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Cymru.lass, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Anyways, this stuff is over at {{uw-vandalism1/sandbox}}, and is tested at {{uw-vandalism1/testcases}}. Adding this functionality to the uw templates would not only allow people manually warning editors to add diffs, but it (might?) allow Twinkle to add the diff when a user is warning people with Twinkle. (If the warning is done using the popup window that appears when you revert an edit using Twinkle. Twinkle automatically fills in the article name when you do that, so maybe it wouldn't be so hard to fill in the diff? I'll post a note on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle pointing them to this page.) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like an interesting idea and the functionality seems useful somewhere, but is it really necessary for this purpose? I would think that most vandals would know how they soiled an article without us having to explicitly point out the diff to them (i.e. just the article name is probably sufficient). Also, this seems to not take into account where someone will vandalize across a series of edits, and thus multiple diffs or a combined diff, though this concern is trumped by the earlier is-this-really-necessary concern. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the diff functionality would be useful in a few cases:
For NPA violations or edit-warring warnings, it would provide a specific diff that could be easily referred to in the event of having to request a block (instead of having to sift through the user's contributions)
Sometimes, users will vandalise multiple times in a row without getting a warning. When it isn't bad enough to merit a 4im and just merits a level one warning (because the user is new, etc.), having a diff linked to the most recent of the first little batch of vandalism so editors giving future warnings can easily tell for which vandalising edits the user has been warned and for which s/he hasn't. (That wasn't unintelligible at all...)
Also, I think having a diff would be useful for warning new users that have more than one or two edits, showing them exactly what they did that was deemed vandalism or inappropriate. This would help them learn how things work at Wikipedia by giving them concrete examples of what isn't appropriate (going through a huge policy page like WP:Vandalism or WP:Reliable sources can be a bit daunting, and being able to look at a specific instance of violation of that policy would give them a better starting point. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I just thought of another instance of where it would be useful: Some users who have had their edits reverted or who have been warned for NPA violations, etc. Having a link to a specific diff helps people (especially ones who do a lot of vandalism patrol) refresh their memories in order to be able to respond to the editor. It's often really hard to connect a specific editor with the edit one reverted when one is doing vandalism patrol (or maybe it's just me that's incredibly forgetful... :P), so easy access to a diff would help the reverting editor or warner explain things to the "revertee" or "warnee" (or, if the situation called for it, redact their warning). Also, a lot of newcomers don't know about or are not yet comfortable with using page histories, so they might not be able to go back and look at the edit that was reverted. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
How will one go about making it quick and easy to get the correct diff? I don't want to go digging around for a revision ID. Also, hold the talkback template - I have this page watchlisted, and have for a long time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if one is doing the reverting manually, one can lookat the diff for the edit about to be reverted and simply copy-paste the number after &diff= in the diff's URL.
However, I'm thinking that this would be most useful for Twinkle, because Twinkle (might) be able to grab the revisionid automatically and add it to the partially prefilled form that users get when reverting an edit. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that getting automated tools (not just Twinkle, but also Huggle, etc.) on board would be the key to this functionality's success (who warns people manually anymore)? Have you discussed whether a diff-mining functionality would be feasible to program in? Twinkle is currently undergoing a rewrite, so now would be a good time to build in new functionality. I don't use Huggle, and so I can't speak for that tool. You might want to discuss it with them... SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And I found out why now. Twinkle's feature requests are transcluded from a separate page into the discussion page. Thus if someone posts a feature request, if someone is not separately watching that page, they will not see the edit ding in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I knew this already, but it must have slipped my mind. I am facepalming right now. Thank you :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Uw-create series
The template series consisting of {{uw-create1}}, {{uw-create2}}, {{uw-create3}}, {{uw-create4}}, and {{uw-create4im}} is currently so ambiguously worded and poorly defined as to be useless. "Inappropriate" is an ambiguous negative word, and so let's try to move away from that and use actual meaningful language to improve this template. What kind of "bad" page is this template specifically intended for? Presumably, the author of a page that would be removed through speedy deletion under G1, G3, or G10 would be a candidate to receive this warning, but what about a person who creates an article that ends in A7? Or in a PROD? Or an AFD discussion, even? These kinds of pages that meet their end in various deletion processes don't meet our guidelines as well, but is the author a good candidate for receiving the warning? We need to more fully define what this template is for, then rewrite its wording, or, if it turns out to be too broad, possibly split it into multiple template series that address specific behaviors. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This series seems like it could be replaced with a single-issue warning, because commonly-used templates for notifying users of various types of speedy deletion as well as PROD and AfD noms go into much more detail; they not only have these links, but they also explain where a user can find out how to contest/participate in discussions. Those could be used with the first inappropriate article created, then a single-issue warning could be used if the editor continues to create obviously inappropriate articles in quick succession — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
First off: Noncompliant articles that meet their end via AFD and PROD are off the table for inclusion in a revised version of the template. That was my emphasizing that the template was not well-defined, and to give a user a warning for an article that ends in AFD or PROD is kind of insulting when, in most cases, those are good-faith efforts.
That said, I think we should develop warnings for specific behaviors. I believe we should probably create a set of warnings for attack pages (pages that would die at speedy G10), and then a second set of warnings for nonsense/vandalism pages (pages that would die at speedy G1 and G3). I think we could easily go single-issue on both of these, because only registered accounts can create pages, and in a lot of cases, someone who comes right out of the gate and creates attack, vandalistic, or nonsense pages gets indef-blocked pretty quickly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal of uw-globalblock
The block template uw-globalblock haven't not yet developed. A block template designed for globally blocked IP addresses. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It occurs to me that "We welcome and appreciate your contributions" (my emphasis) might be just a bit of overkill. The message I'd like to convey to problematic but potentially "salvageable" newbies is that we welcome their presence if they're willing to adhere to the basic policies but do not welcome or appreciate some—or in some cases, all—of their contributions. No doubt we want level-1 templates to sound friendly, but the current wording seems too much, almost patronizing. Imo. While separating the sinner editor from the sin edit would be ideal, I'd settle for killing either "welcome" or "appreciate". Thoughts? Rivertorch (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
how come Uw-username reason failed to appear?
What did I do wrong? I posted the following, including a reason, on a user's talk page, but the resulting display said the notifier had not included a reason, so I went back in and added the reason manually. Here's what I posted, before the substitution occurred:
{{subst:Uw-username|Editing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Rockefeller&curid=659333&diff=429763614&oldid=428566379) respecting the Rockefeller Archive Center was by Rockarchcenter (you), which appears to be a promotional name disallowed by [[Wikipedia:Username#Appropriate usernames]], and you seem to have a relevantly focused interest in your edits generally. I think this would be a problem in giving the appearance that you are the owner of articles you edit, and Wikipedia does not allow that.}}
I wanted to provide a link but didn't know if the usual way of linking within Wikipedia articles would work inside of a template (then forgot and linked something else anyway). Is either one the error? or is it the period at the end of the reason? or the lack of a sig (I forgot to include it until later)? or something else?
Note that the usename issue itself has been resolved.
Many template parameters break if a URL is included and you can see that if you try the same code but remove the URL it works, so including the URL was the culprit. A common fix is to use "1=" in the parameter, which does work here, i.e., the following fixes the problem:
{{subst:Uw-username|1=Editing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Rockefeller&curid=659333&diff=429763614&oldid=428566379) respecting the Rockefeller Archive Center was by Rockarchcenter (you), which appears to be a promotional name disallowed by [[Wikipedia:Username#Appropriate usernames]], and you seem to have a relevantly focused interest in your edits generally. I think this would be a problem in giving the appearance that you are the owner of articles you edit, and Wikipedia does not allow that.}}
I was going to edit the Uw-username template instructions accordingly, then the Single Notice template instructions accordingly, since that template provides instructions for the Uw-username template, but then it got too complicated, so I didn't edit any of it. Your advice should be posted where we users would be likely to see it. I hope someone knows how.
Something like this in {{Single notice}} would help: If the article includes a URL, prefix it with "1=" (without quote marks). For example, {{subst:Uw-username|1=This is discussed at length at http://www.example.com.}} End both list items with periods and add this after the period for the first list item. In the Uw-username template, "article" should automatically become "reason".
Thank you. I tweaked a bit for clarity (in two steps and the diff is combined; to see them separately, see [1] and [2]). I hope this is okay. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (Corrected the URL identified as 2: 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC))
How can one have 1200 years of education? And the level 1 warnings are the most unreadable, they give the impression of "tl;dr", and fail to address the problem directly enough. --Σ☭★02:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I just created {{uw-ew}} to complement {{uw-3rr}}. Personally, I have always been a little dissatisfied with how that template emphasizes 3RR in particular more than the edit warring policy in general; I often find myself in situations where it is appropriate to give someone a warning about edit-warring behavior even though they are not necessarily in danger of breaching 3rr, and in those cases {{uw-3rr}} is often more a distraction than anything else--people read it and, rather than dealing with the issue, just respond "but I haven't broken 3RR". So anyway, I just threw together {{uw-ew}} as a very similar template only without a warning about 3rr in particular. If there is any way it can be improved feel free to play with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have often found that the standard edit-warring warning overemphasises 3RR, so that users tend to think it means that it's OK to edit was as long as they stop short of 3RR. That is not a reasonable reading of the message, but it is a very common one. Maybe the new template will help. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I added an Ayn Rand topic option to the template. Hopefully I did it correctly; if I made any sort of mistake, I trust someone who is more experienced than I am with this sort of thing will fix it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we shouldn't get rid of the parameter that links the warning to the article. I know that sounds crazy at first an I wouldn't suggest it for any other criterion, but here's why I think we should for this one: The majority of attack pages appear to be school kids mocking/teasing one another. Leaving a warning that names the person being attacked therefore seems like it would only exacerbate the problem, drawing more attention to the attack and increasing the likelihood of other students seeing it and possibly copying it before it is deleted. The person who posted the attack knows what they did, creating an attack page is in over 95% of cases a manifest act of bad faith. After the page is deleted it would take an admin to determine who was attacked if there was no link in the warning, reducing the impact of the attack, which would seem to be in everyone's best interest. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Two weeks on and nobody has found a reason to object to this idea. I'm going to attempt to make this change, but I warn you I'm pretty clueless about coding stuff so I might be coming back to ask for help. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I've got it removed from the template itself, but I'm not sure what to chop and what to leave in the coding in the documentation. Also wondering if Twinkle and/or Huggle need to be tweaked or if they will know not to ask for the article name anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It was doubt about how to handle the documentation that held me back from making this change just after it was suggested. Maybe I'll find time soon to try to sort it out, unless someone more knowledgeable can step in. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Please update the doc page accordingly. I tried to remove the parameter from the documentation but it's only transcluded from some standard page. So maybe the template should have a documetation of its own now. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Little single-issue notice for people who edit talk page archives
I've had this template sitting around in my userspace a while and never got around to talking about turning it into a "uw-" template. The notice in question is a single-issue notice for users who edit archives, explaining what a talk archive is, why it's not considered a good idea to edit them, and how to revive an archived discussion. User:cymru.lass/archive notice gives the following:
Hello! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. One of your recent edits added text to an archive. Archives are places to store old discussions, so it is generally not a good idea to edit them. Additionally, few people read archives, so messages posted there is not likely to be read. If you find an archived discussion that you would like to revive, feel free to do so on the article's talk page. For more information on archives, check out Wikipedia:Archives. Hope this helps!
What do you think? Appropriate for inclusion in template namespace as a "uw-" template or not? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think a link to WP:Contact us should be in the expansion, in case of, for example, copyright violations. May I propose the addition: If you wish to request removal of illegal material, the proper channels are specified within Wikipedia:Contact us. (And you might add the address for legal service of the Foundation, which I can't find at the moment.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I support this guardedly. We should have some sentence there in the spirit of WP:DOLT, but most of the time people making legal threats aren't looking to remove "illegal" material per se. So maybe something about if you want material removed from an article you can remove it yourself, contact an admin or contact the WMF? Protonk (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring and breaking 3RR: not always the same thing!
I was lately warned using Template:uw-3rr on my talk page, and it caused a lot of confusion. I was not involved in an edit war on this page, by wiki's definition of the term, my 4 reverts on the article being mostly unrelated issues. A template informing users they have passed/are at 3RR is perfectly useful, but it is not useful for that template to also accuse said users that they are engaged in an edit war, when they might not be. In fact, in my case this template's accusatory nature led me to file a Wikiquette alert under the mistaken believe that I had been directly and falsely reprimanded for edit warring, not passing 3RR. Surely it would be better to have Template:uw-3rr as it is as a warning for edit warring, and re-write the 3RR template to "You appear to have exceeded the three-revert rule..." etc., with a subsiduary mention of "If you are involved in an edit war..." U-Mos (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I made up a notice of sorts for an inappropriate edit, I am posting the actual notice here to see if anyone thinks a transcluded version could/should be added to the single-level templates section:
Two things: (A) appropriate/inappropriate doesn't say anything about why it is not up to snuff. Come up with a better term. However, (B) do we really need a warning for this? I feel like this is a maintenance issue rather than a behavioral issue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Without quoting it, this particular edit referred to the personal life of this BLP's subject & was placed within the article. Didn't seem to be quite covered by any of the available notice templates. A parameter/space could be added to any possible template with room for additional text (like your reason why), but I am definitely not any kind of an expert on templates/transclusion/coding. That's why I posted my vague idea here. If folks feel it isnt needed, then that's that. I was just wondering if something like this might be useful. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The cited example is perfectly covered by uw-unsourced which provides: Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
WP:TONE redirects to Wikipedia:Writing better articles. As a linguist, I interpret 'tone' in our context to be the level of language used. Traditionally, encyclopedias are written in a tight, formal style without being overly intellectual or academic and hard for readers to understand. Informal language (magazine and/or spoken stye), such as the use of contractions, referring to bio subjects by their first names, and addressing the reader as 'you' are certainly inappropriate, as is of course 'teen-talk' and the language used by rappers and garage bands and their fans. Not everyone is able to communicate in a formal tone, so there is certainly a need for some kind of uw template, but as a single issue notice. Tone is something regular users here or the GOCE can easily clean up, and warnings for tone should not be served up to reprehend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The choice of words and the phrasing of that particular edit I came across didn't seem encyclopedic to me (even if the edit/assertion might be true and could be verifiable), so I thought a template might prove useful. Thanks everyone for your feedback.Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought the hangon template was now deprecated since the use of the new CSD template with its 'contest' button. Or am I missing something? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, I've been reverting vandalism for a while now and there has always been a problem when I make a mistake in flagging vandalism which actually isn't, which is pretty inevitably going to happen to any editor who reverts vandalism a lot, you're going to get some wrong.
For those who glance over a user's talk page, seeing a vandal note is probably going to make the reader think the worse of the user which ends up with their being undeservingly scolded for making a sensible edit. You can't really just remove the warning template because it can break some conversation paths, so I've been wondering whether it would be good to create a template, to replace any misplaced earlier template content, with (following is completely open to change, and it probably needs to be officialized a little more):
Welcome to Wikipedia. The previous warning template was added here in error, and the warning has been rescinded. Thank you for your edit.
It might also make the user feel better to be in the community and more at home, which is always pretty necessary.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The previous warning template concerning this edit [Edit] to the article [Article] was added here in error, and the warning has now been rescinded. Thank you for your contribution.
This kind of seems like a solution looking for a problem. Whenever I've applied a warning template in error, I've simply removed the erroneously-applied template and apologized in the edit summary, and that was the end of it. No need for a templated public apology. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done the same, but we're thinking of speed, we could always write down a message saying that they've vandalized, but we add a template because it's faster. Also, as I've said, it can break some comment paths, such as if the user writes underneath the warning and you remove it, the path of conversation is now broken. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!)07:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you can strike through the warning and apologize below. Besides, do you really screw this up enough to need a template? Again, a quick "whoops, didn't mean to do that" seems to take less time than a template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't (or shouldn't) happen very often, and a personal note if far nicer than template. You can could use a pre written text that you can store in your user sub pages. It would always be your own personal message. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
uw-autobio
I have rephrased this to make it somewhat milder, and to include some more appropriate links, while dropping others to avoid it being TLDR. The reasons are:
Not all autobios are created by kids, rappers, political candidates, and CEOs of small companies.
Many autobios are created in good faith by retired people who genuinely believe they have contributed something significant or worthwhile to society. Such people may be able understand our policies, once explained, and might even stay with us and write an article about something else.
The language needs to be understandable to both very young, and older users, and a first 'warning' should not sound like an admonishment.
If they persist and recreate, we have plenty of opportunities to use stronger phraseology.
Don't like that word "inappropriate" in there. Let's come up with a better, more descriptive word (why people so love to toss around the meaningless term "inappropriate", I don't know). What are we trying to say? Non-standard formatting? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Really the crux of the matter is that we don't care if people violate MoS, even on a regular basis, if they are contributing content that happens to contain violations - a second editor making stuff MoS compatible (and fixing spelling, layout etc.) is very wiki. What we take exception to is when, having had it explained that a particular style is used, by consensus, they continue to make edits whose purpose is solely or mainly to make changes which create violations. So maybe the shorter
Proposed "the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style,"
I've searched everywhere but I can't find the body text from the php calls for this uw notice. People just aren't reading it. There's a big difference between trying to be friendly and helpful and presenting a new user with a wall of TLDR text.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Cars (franchise). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Cars (film). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cars (film) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest slimming this down a bit to remove the repetitions and to make it more newbie friendly:
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello {{revisionuser}}, thanks for creating, Cars (franchise). Unfortunately, we already have a page about this at Cars (film) and your article may soon be deleted (if it hasn't been already). You are most welcome to expand the existing article, but do remember to add reliable sources for your new additions.
If you think your article should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," on the article's deletion message and leave your comments on the page that opens. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.
I think that this may actually be out of scope for this page (though I understand why you came here). You might find a better forum over at WT:CSD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I have no itention of changing CSD policy - I just want to be bold and change this well intended but ridiculous wall of text . I need to know is where it is. Are you able to answer that question, as template experts? Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I Agree that this is the best venue for discussing this change and support Kudpung's slimmed down version. The original is far too unwieldy. Pol430talk to me18:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change it for the suggested text above. Reasons:
It is a wall of TL;DR text and is being ignored by the recipients.
It is deeply embedded in the parent template code, and is unavailable for manual use.
It is not listed anywhere as a manually placed template.
A Twinkle option should be included as a single issue uw rather than only the automated placement by the Twinkle CSD A10.
In spite of my knowledge of templates, I have tried, but I am unable to unwrap this body text from its parent templates and additional contingent template calls. This is a technical and communication issue and does not concern the policy for deletion at CSD A10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I've created a new template at Template:uw-notvand, thought it might be useful to be added to this page, but I wanted to discuss it here first. It's basically a "Hey, that wasn't vandalism" notice, because I've seen a lot of improperly labelled rv vandalism edit summaries and Your edits are vandalism! comments on talk pages, when the edits in question weren't vandalism. Figured a template would be good to inform users who might not know what is and is not vandalism. - SudoGhost™17:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a fairly useful single-issue notice template, and it sounds as though you encounter it enough that you could spend all day sending individual notices. What do other folks think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This probably does come up enough that a template is warranted. However, I think the proposed template could be a bit gentler - the ones mislabeling the vandalism are likely to be newer editors themselves.--Kubigula(talk)22:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a useful single-issue notice. However, it could certainly be rephrased to be a bit milder - editors who revert vandalism are doing it in GF however erroneously. A lot of NPPers and RCPers are indeed very new Wikipedians. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to soften the language up? I tried to keep it to strictly facts, but reading over it, I can see how it might not be taken in the best of light. - SudoGhost™07:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
How about opening it with something like "Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits..." I think if you add a softer opening sentence, that might help it appear milder. Princess Lirin (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I added that to the beginning of the template, hopefully that helps make it seem more friendly. I completely understand that if editors think that they need to go on the defensive against a stern unfriendly template, it doesn't help the collaborative efforts, only hinders. That wasn't at all my intention in writing this template, just to save users time in informing users that might not be aware of WP:NOTVAND. Hopefully it reads milder now. :) - SudoGhost™08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Question So is it appropriate to add it to the project page? I was going to add it to "Single-level templates - Advisories" but I didn't want to do so without discussing it here first. - SudoGhost™13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is/does become added to twinkle, can you remove the notwinkle=yes parameter from the documentation? - SudoGhost™14:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the notwinkle=yes parameter, since it is now part of Twinkle. Please feel free to revert or modify the documentation template if it causes any issues. Thank you. - SudoGhost05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
New template availiable
I have just added something like this:
This is the only warning you'll receive. If you change another genre without a discussion or sources again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Hi all - apologies if this is the wrong place to note this, but I can't find a talk page for WP:UW for some reason (they all seem to redirect here). A template I made after a request a couple of years ago was taken to WP:TFD but survived when I explained the reason for it - it seems it has never ben listed with WP:UW... {{Uw-controversial2}} is similar to {{disruptive2}} (hence its name, which allows for a potential range of levels), but where uw-disruptive2's text assumes that the addition was deliberate and incorrect, uw-controversial2 assumes the edits were made in good faith and does not assume that they were an incorrect addition to the article, only one where there was potential to open old edit-war wounds or similar. A perfect example might be a new editor changing the word "Gdansk" to "Danzig" in an article, or "China" to "mainland China". The potential for an edit war developing in these cases is great, but the editor who made the initial edit would not necessarily know that. Rtather than describing their edit as disruptive, it simply says that it may be construed that way by some editors. Grutness...wha?09:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the unintentional act of, as Stephen Colbert might say, sticking one's penis into a hornet's nest, and warning someone that they may be doing so.
First of all, considering that there is no {{uw-controversial1}}, {{uw-controversial3}}, and {{uw-controversial4}} (and likely never going to be), I think it might be wise to change this to {{uw-controversial}} and make this a single-issue notice. After all, this isn't the kind of notice that is really escalatable. If someone is that dense and keeps going, then we would escalate it with a different template, since escalating warnings for disruption does at some point require throwing good faith out the window. I also think that for a warning that assumes good faith, throwing the word "vandalism" in there at all seems to indicate otherwise.
Here's what I'm going to do. First, I'm renaming this template to {{uw-controversial}} since it's apparent that this is single-issue. Then I'm going to tone down the wording just a little. After all, we don't want people to put various body parts in dangerous places, but at the same time, we need to be a little nicer about it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Such bad summaries are cropping up (discussed here) even though the edits themselves may be within guideline/policy. Two editors over at Twinkle felt that using a template would make matters worse, but I feel it can help guide new and IP editors. I know that such a uw1 would have helped steer me away from some of my early outbursts - seeing it as a template adds gravitas. See also WP:TIGERS. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, I've added {{subst:Uw-3rr1}}, {{subst:Uw-3rr2}}, {{subst:Uw-3rr3}}, and {{subst:Uw-3rr4}}. Because users find it hard to find these templates, so I made it easier to find. StormContent (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do we even have these templates? One would think that a single-issue warning (which already exists) would suffice rather than four levels of warning, especially since multiple back-and-forth edits are required to identify an edit war in the first place. Otherwise you're just bothering people if you warn them for one reversion, and the fourth warning is just a matter of "nyah nyah you're in trouble!" rather than anything substantive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A big problem for me doing WP:RCP is that so many number-changing edits by IPs are good-faith, and how difficult it is to know the difference. That explains why number changing vandalism is such a pernicious kind -- blending in with the civilians, they're hard to catch, but we don't want to shoot the bystanders in the crossfire.
It occurred to me that we could help this situation by recruiting the good-faith IPs and explaining to them how to distinguish themselves. Suppose it became common practice to leave a template like this for IPs who change a lot of numbers:
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may be in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. Please be careful to use an edit summary for all of your contributions so that other editors can understand the reason for the changes. If you continue to make unexplained edits, they may be treated as vandalism. Thank you, ~~~~
Huggle could resolve this as a level 1 warning template so that if the behavior doesn't change, or turns into clear vandalism, we would have a record of prior warnings. Thoughts, opinions? causa sui (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
No, no, no, and no. No warning is necessary, and it has the potential of driving away users by saying they might be viewed as vandals. If an IP editor changes numbers without providing a source or an explanation, I revert them on sight as unexplained/unsourced and leave it at that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, reverting good-faith edits without an explanation that new users can relate to is tremendously alienating and actually does drive away many users who leave with the impression that Wikipedia is dominated by unreasonable people. The WMF is already expending tremendous effort and significant financial resources to combating this problem. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This situation is already addressed by another template, {{uw-error1}}, which I use in all cases where unsourced changes are made to facts or figures and it is not obvious vandalism. It suggests that if the editor believes their changes to be valid, that they cite a source (thereby introducing them to the concept of verifiability). I believe Huggle uses a variation on this template if you select the "factual errors" reason when reverting. —Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Disruption block notice
I have created a template Template:uw-disruptblock, primarily for use in TW. This is because there appears to be no standard template for a block for disruptive editing that doesn't fit nicely into other categories (i.e. vandalism, edit-warring, etc.). There are already disruptive editing Level 1-4 templates, but no equivalent blocking template, which surprised me. Black Kite (t)(c)11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I got tired of writing personal messages to the many users I work with who are unaware of, or who pretend to be unaware of, the 1RR on abortion articles, so I created a user talk page template. How does this template look? And may I begin using it, or does it have to be formally approved or something? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally I'd move some of it around so that it flows better when using the includeonly. For instance: "While it may have been in good faith, at least one of your edits, such as the edit on the page User:SudoGhost, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism." as opposed to "At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, on the page User:SudoGhost was difficult to distinguish from vandalism." - SudoGhost18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the warning. I think the comments to your earlier post misunderstood the meaning... although I do guess there is some overlap with the error template. The primary difference is that error assumes the information is incorrect; this one is specific to edits that 1) are unexplained, and 2) are not on their face incorrect. That's a significant difference from uw-error, so I think it serves a purpose. I don't know if maybe the wording could reflect that better or not. Shadowjams (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Do you think the level 2 warning is too harsh? Would language like that be more appropriate for a level 3? causa sui (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I reckon the wording would be, yes... It seems a bit newbie biting imo. Could do with a more obvious encouragement to register I reckon? And yeah, I know I'm weasaling with this reply! - JCJ (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't like the template for reasons I've stated before. If it's vandalism, don't beat around the bush about it. If it's not vandalism, then it's not, and send someone a welcome message or let it go, or boldly rework it behind them. I for one would never use this template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you know what? On second thought, this is even worse than I thought. The first one essentially duplicates {{uw-editsummary}}, and then the second one is unnecessary. If someone isn't using an edit summary after being reminded to do so and it looks like vandalism, it probably is, and should be handled as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place for an extended discussion about the evolving character of wiki-vandalism, but briefly, I'd say that what you're describing is how we've been doing things for years. The impetus, I think at least, for what causa is trying to do is to address this hole we have in our responses. As way of analogy, it's nice to have some middle level between doe-eyed assume good faith and beware the ban hammer. A number of editors, including causa and myself, have been trying to focus on these sorts of edits. If you take a sample of the 500 most recent changes at any one time, you'll find a non negligible percentage of them involve changes to facts in this way.
Many of these editors are making legitimate changes, fixing old lingering vandalism, or are simply using conflicting sources--this happens with IMDB pages a lot in regards to birthdates. I regularly use the two templates you're talking about... but I also often find myself having to write out and explain more. It'd be nice to come up with a template that covered this situation succinctly.
You may disagree about the content of the message... which is of course what we can focus on here, but I'm skeptical of dismissing the need altogether. We need a middle ground: one that continues to assume good faith but also points out the ambiguity of these edits and warns that they may be treated as vandalism. I find that preferable to an edit summary warning--too generic--and to the factual error warning--no explanation and possibly hostile.
I think these first drafts are a good start, but perhaps the wording can be tweaked. But the underlying principle is sound. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree w/ schuminweb. If an edit is vandalism, say so. If it isn't but necessitates a message, leave one. Making a softer vandalism message only adds to the template proliferation we see already. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're understanding the purpose of the template. A lot of number-changing edits are not vandalism. I really hope we haven't been treating every unexplained edit by an IP as vandalism. causa sui (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I for one don't treat them as vandalism, but I will revert most unexplained and unsourced edits on sight, with an edit summary saying that it is unsourced and unexplained. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That is very newbie biting, and it is a common complaint among people who tried to edit Wikipedia and left with the impression that it is controlled by unreasonable people. causa sui (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And a change in the window dressing isn't going to fix it. The problem with new editors is complex but this particular facet revolves around the nature of NPP/RCP and watched pages. Recent change patrollers have to err on the side of conservatism because we can't reliably determine which pages have active watchers. Once we pass by an edit it goes to a much less rich system of responses. Basically if there is a factual error inserted by a one off edit it may go unnoticed for days, months or years based on how active a page is. There is no mechanism for medium term page and revision watching. Even if I wanted to I couldn't patrol a queue of edits which are "marginal" but not time sensitive with any confidence that my work wouldn't be conflicted out or made irrelevant by faster paced processes. The choice of template is nearly irrelevant, considering that most new users thing templates are left by bots anyway (because many are). I'm not going to support adding more templates which say basically the same thing if I don't feel it adds to the process enough to justify both the complexity and false sense of security that a problem is being solved. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm beyond baffled by the negative responses to this idea. The only actual downside argument I'm hearing here is "template proliferation"... I could round up a dozen other templates (skype interfering with editing template?). Fine if you don't want to help with this process, but what exactly is the downside? Shadowjams (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
My earlier response got eaten by my cable modem. Probably for the best. I don't think characterizing responses as agreeing w/ you or not helping the process is helpful. However I will say my primary objection stems from the irrelevance of templates to the problem you mean to solve. The actual language on templates can be improved but our core means of handling recent changes is not amenable to new users. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Pray tell, how do we deal with them now? As far as I can see nobody here has suggested changing anything about how we actually handle these cases. It's about simplifying how we inform them of our policies. You apparently are reading substantially more into this discussion than I see discussed here... and perhaps you're also laboring under the assumption that any of this is about individual personalities. Nobody has suggested that until your most recent comment. Worst of all, this conversation has had very little discussion on the actual merits of causa's original proposal. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in escalating this or making it personal. Specifically, you left the comment about helping the process with an edit summary of "what the fuck," not me. I'm also not reading any more into the discussion than I need to. I'm simply offering a comment. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Then offer some constructive comments, on the merits. You seem very interested in my edit summaries (never left the edit summary you're "quoting" btw) and edit history. We're still left with very little on the merits. You're the one who started talking about personalities, and my exasperation at your lack of meaningful comment is quite intentional, and has only continued to be confirmed. How about you focus on the issues here, instead of me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
We need to get a few things straight:
Your contribution page is public for a reason. If you want to talk shit about editors on someone's talk page that's fine, but don't get offended when they notice it. Preferably if you are going to make vague complaints about bureaucracy and what-not you could have a sense of humor about it. If you don't or you don't feel comfortable when someone objects to being characterized in that fashion then don't make the characterization. And leaving an edit summary of wtf while objecting that you didn't say "what the fuck" is intriguing.
I don't know you from Adam. I think I've seen causa sui on this page before but I don't know him/her either. None of the objections I've raised are personal.
My objections to the templates are simple. First, template proliferation is a valid complaint. We have too many already and were I a benign dictator I would cut them down to maybe a dozen at the most. Second, the goal of writing softer warning templates is a laudable one, but that won't impact our communication with new users in the slightest. The structure and incentives of NPP/RCP dominate interactions between established editors and new editors. A nice template message left by an editor in a hurry after reverting a marginal edit is still left in a hurry and still left in response to reverting a marginal edit. Attempting to solve that by rewriting templates (or worse, adding more) simply doesn't solve the problem.
I'm really confused by your repeated insistence that I make objections in some fashion you might prefer. If someone proposes a template and I respond by suggesting that wikipedia might not need that template how is that not a legitimate reply? I feel like the only permitted response is one which presupposes that the templates in question are a good idea. If I don't think the templates are a good idea then I can't participate constructively.
Not really sure what to say about all this: I and at least a few others are going to use this template in one form or another, so I'd appreciate any help with the wording and syntax. On the issue of whether the level 2 warning is too harsh, can anyone offer me help on how to soften it? Do I need a level 3 warning? causa sui (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was a bug, because yesterday I added the template, and Twinkle did not add any sect header like "August 2011," but today, it did! Anyways, no worries. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The way Twinkle works is that it looks for the header for the current month, and if it sees one, it won't add it, even if there are other sections in between the warning it is about to place and the header it's looking for. So you may still have an issue... SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Changes
I've made a few minor changes to Template:Uw-3rr intended to reduce the accusatory tone of the template. I find it particularly bad that we accuse some editors of "edit warring" when they might never have heard the term and might not even be aware that persistence and boldness are not always permitted on Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF tells us that civility is the watchword for Wikipedia. The template wording prior to my minor changes directly accuses editors of edit warring, rather than attempting to notify and educate editors. This non-AGF approach seems to be inappropriate considering the whole point of the template is to change bad behavior, not amplify it with uncivil accusations. -- Avanu (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
simple transclusion of uw-tilde
I added examples of template:uw-tilde to WP:Unsigned, so that users responding to unsigned talk page comments can include the template on the offending user's talk page. I feel that it is appropriate to only transclude the uw-tilde template, instead of subst:, as we want that documentation to reflect changes to the template. If this causes a problem, please don't hesitate to update the documentation at WP:Unsigned. There are two transcluded calls in the second-to-last wikitable in the section "Dealing with unsigned comments". VanIsaacWS07:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this template really needed? It is largely based on {{Uw-ewblock}}, so I guess merging them two is better. Also, I wonder if even mentioning 3RR violation, as edit warring doesn't require three or more reverts, is needed. HeyMid (contribs) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There's certainly value in having both around. Since 3RR is a line-in-the-sand rule and disruption via edit warring can be more widespread but doesn't necessarily have to break 3RR, both have value in keeping around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A block for 3RR is a lot less ambiguous than a block for edit warring—it's much easier to say "I wasn't edit warring" or "you can't block me, I only reverted X times", but if you violated the 3RR, you're banged to rights. I use both on a regular basis, and I know quite a few other admins do. There was a discussion about this a while ago which I believe resulted in a consensus not to do away with uw-3block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It's good to have both templates available. In practice I tend to use uw-ewblock even in plain 3RR cases, but other admins may have a different preference. In the previous discussion linked above User:Protonk said he would rather use uw-3block for a case of ten reverts in 20 minutes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The choice of which to use is up to the blocking admin. I think the edit warring template works fine for all edit warring and the 3rr template works well if you want to declare unambiguously that someone has crossed the three revert trigger. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just flagging this for a discussion, as I'm not sure of the etiquette of just wading in and editing an important template, but uw-coi was edited a few months ago in a way that introduced some strange wording ("If you are affiliated with [subject] you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject", plus some odd breakup of the "avoid or exercise great caution" list) and shifted the focus into some odd places (the deletion of competitors' articles, a vague warning about trying not to "accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies", dropping "where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred", directly telling the editor that they probably have a "distorted" view of the subject, and suggesting that the main problem of a COI is that an editor might "inadvertently" be "too flattering or too disparaging").
I don't see that these changes really added anything to the template, and can't find any discussion in favour of them - does anyone else think we should revert to the previous version? --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This is something I run into occasionally. A user will just not reply to any post made to their talk page and keep going. In some cases it turns out the user isn't fluent in English, other times it appears they are either very poor communicators or are doing it as a deliberate tactic to avoid scrutiny. These users usually aren't vandals, or they do get blocked right away. It's usually copyright, creating useless pages, or generally unhelpful edits that need to be reverted. I recently reviewed an unblock request from a user who ignored nearly forty warnings about copyright before finally being blocked. They had never edited any talk pages before requesting unblock. So, where I'm going with this is should we come up with a template to leave a user who seems to be ignoring all posts to their talk page, explaining that proceeding as if they did not see the messages is (eventually) going to lead to them being blocked? And if so, how to word it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably the best option would be to control the current orange box that appears when you you have new messages. Change it to red, make it larger and say something like 'If you do not address the concerns raised on your talk page you will be blocked from editing'. Link 'talk page' to their talk page. Crude and maybe a bit too bitty, but may be the only thing that works in those cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone can actually miss the dreaded orange banner when they log on. if the contributor is obviously a non native Englush speaker, it sometimes helps (if you are not fluent in their language) to do a machine translation of the template text and add it to the warning.
I run into it quite often. I rather like Beeblebrox's suggestion, but another problems is that of the users who always blank any warnings. Without fishing in the talk page history, it's not immediately apparent that they've been warned before. If Beeb's suggestion were to be adopted, the template should preferably include something like: 'please do not remove this template from your talk page until you have addressed the issues or replied'. Another solution would be to create a 'warning log' that is automatically updated when official warning templates are added. Similar to the block log, it would save all that fishing in the history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Minor issue with Template:Uw-userpage
There seems to be a small error in this template that manifests when additional text is entered as a third parameter. For example, adding: {{subst:uw-userpage|User:BeePictureGuy|it is filled with pictures of bees}} gives the message text:
"...I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelinebecause it is filled with pictures of bees. If you believe..."
without a space before "because". The raw template has such a space in it's includeonly section ({{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}| because {{{2|}}}}}), but for some reason it's not carrying over when the template is called. I don't know enough about markup to be comfortable fixing it myself (at a guess, I'd use a , but I can't really see how that would help), so perhaps someone with a bit more experience would like to correct it. Yunshui (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The prohibition on copyvio is not restricted to main article-space and everything on-wiki is public. Should the {{uw-copyright}} warning explicitly mention that fact? Otherwise editors may treat userspace sandboxes as a place to put copyvio material for various reasons and either not recognize that this is not permitted or think that it is okay because it's just a non-article sandbox. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
My first thought would be are we seeing this occur or is it an actual problem? I think the first sentence covers Wikipedia as a whole, though I agree there is ambiguity in this phrase "..but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images". As you say explicitly mentioning article here could lead to misinterpretation. I'm not usually a fan of changing wording due to something that possibly might happen sometime, but I dislike ambiguity as well. I think the second sentence clearly states the situation with the fact material will be deleted how do you feel about this version?
" For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. However you may use external websites or publications as a source for your information."
Still not explicit enough. I am seeing copyvio in user sandboxes, and especially lately from a pool of student-editors who are generally having problems (albeit often well-intentioned) with the copyvio policy in general. The same editors are also seemingly prone to image copyvios, which are harder for NPP to detect. In a previous semester, I saw several students create a hopeless copyvio (including images and text) in sandbox and then gradually change it to make article content or to use it as an online pile of notecards while writing. But we can't tolerate copyvio even as a work-in-progress and this edit pattern also could make the result tainted as a derived-from-copyvio (but at least easy to detect!). What finally brought me here was after talking to some WP:IEP ambassadors about the situation...again even when hitting students over the head with the template when reverting their article edits, they just switch over to the same problematic edits in sandbox-space. Just working the phrase "anywhere on Wikipedia" into the warning would be a big improvement IMO. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OK no problems, and thanks for clearing that up. I'm off out for a while if someone else doesn't give a proposal I'll take into account the explicit everywhere, and tweak it later on. Cheers Khukri16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
One of the issues on the IEP is that contributors are now apparently using locally published textbooks as their sources, possibly in the knowledge that we have no means of checking the hard copy. A further problem is that all across Asia there is culturally very little concern for plagiarism. Even the textbook authors do it, and their publishers are only concerned with the book sales. One only needs to go into any of the many bookshops on Connaught Place and browse through a few volumes on the same subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but the addition of unauthorized copyrighted material in not accepted anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
or:
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, text or images copied from other websites, newspapers, books or textbook, and other printed materials must not be retyped or pasted to any pages on Wikipedia. You may use external websites or publications as a cited source of information only. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and registered accounts or IP users who persistently copy other material will be blocked from editing.
Just a note on the problem, I've seen not just textbooks but journal articles which have copied from our article, in one case several journal articles with identical text from our article. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen plenty of cases here in Asia where content has been ripped from Wikipedia. especially in text books, and in graduate and post graduate theses. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it's necessary to differentiate between registered and IP. Deliberately mentioning pasted and typed takes it more towards text when the same applies to images, and there's no needs to list the sources where it may have come from in my opinion. The basis of the template should keep to the basic fault, and we use the parsered extra comments to give detail to the template if required. Sorry to sound so negative. Khukri10:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that the phraseology adequately address the needs of users for wh m English is a second language, and in whose culture there is little regard for the importance of respecting copyright. We have very recent instances where users from the IEP have been blocked and simply continued under an IP address. I had to block an entire faculty at one stage. FWIW I have worked in education in India. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I see your problem. I would personally prefer the templates to stay as generic as possible, and the original point about removing the emphasis on article space and that it applies across Wikipedia is an important one. Though your problem I would say is very much audience specific and the emphasis needs to be applied to talk pages, and student copying. If this a problem you guys come across often? I would ask that if there is a comprehension problem in the first place would rewording the template help? If this isn't a huge problem would this work;
{{subst:uw-copyright|User talk:Naughty Student|Please be aware that this warning also applies to copying your homework into your userspace.}} ~~~~
Honestly I'm not being obtuse, it's just I would prefer to see templated warning not being directed to specific cases as that was the reason the optional statement was parsered into the warnings. Though I do agree with DMacks original point and think we should put my version or a slightly reworded version in place to cover that, then we look at the student issues, let me know what you think? Cheers Khukri12:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I stated my reasons above. Unless you have experience in patrolling hundreds of new pages, you may not be aware of the situation. However, as someone who has worked in various non-English countries you may have some understanding that the language must be clear, and at a level that non-English speakers understand. It also helps io achieve a mean language level for comprehension in regions of very different cultural perception. . These are not children we're talking about, they are university students and their teachers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
All I can do is apologies as you have misinterpreted my intention and level of knowledge of the subject. All I was suggesting was to try and not to use the templates main text for specific issues and keep the general text generic. Please make the change you see fit. Regards Khukri15:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I won't be deciding what get used anyway. It's always been difficult to get user-centric templates drafted. By the time most editors start drafting prose for warning messages, they've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has indeed changed, but I don't think it's as dire as all that :)
So, I think you both know that Steven and I have recently been doing some A/B testing on warning templates, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to check in with you about where we want to go from here. To keep the momentum of the project going, we'd like to create a centralized discussion/documentation space where we can share our results and get feedback on next steps and new template designs. It would be great if we could work with Wikiproject UW on the English WP side of things (we'd also like to try these tests on other language wikis) – what do you think about us creating a "User warnings testing" task force? Would that make sense as a subset of WP:UW? –Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just to add to this: I was also hoping that we could use a subpage of WP:UW to keep track of the templates we're testing, and include documentation about how the testing works etc. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The UW wikiproject has largely gone inactive. I think most of us felt the work was essentially done and any continuing discussion and tweaking could be done here. However, I for one would be interested to see centralized and detailed documentation of the testing you have been doing.--Kubigula(talk)03:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a shame it's gone inactive. Considering that there are huge initiatives right now to recruit new editors and articles from non native English speakers, I feel that many of our templates are still too bitey, TLDR, and beyond their comprehension. The WMF is currently doing some great work on new user reception and retention, and I think Steve has made some very valid suggestions. We also need to bring some cosmopolitan editors into template development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a template for warning someone when they remove a block notice from their talk page while the block is in force? If not, I'd like to suggest the following:
Do not remove block notices while a block is in force. Removing the block notice from your user talk page while you are blocked can be a sign of tendentious or disruptive editing and may result in the block being extended.
That's possibly the stupidest policy subsection we currently have, mainly because the "consensus" formed for it was among a load of people who, for the most part, don't understand the purpose of a block notice. But still, if we're going to have a template for it, there's no need for it to be so aggressive. A simple "you're not allowed to remove that" would suffice, because if they're doing it just to be disruptive, they'll soon find themselves without talk page access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is that even policy? I'm doubtful. I think a template for it is silly. If you're going tell someone they shouldn't remove something from their talk page (it's not tendentious and the disruption is mainly caused by the reverter) you should have decency to explain the real reason for it if you can come up with one. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not an editor can remove a(n active) block-notice from his own talk-page is a long-standing topic of debate. Last I knew, there was a long-standing (albeit contentious) guideline that editors were allowed to remove it unless they were contesting it (anyone who cares could know about the block, but if discussing the block important to see what is being discussed). However, apparently that has now changed and even uncontested block-messages must remain. I think? DMacks (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:CAIN comes to mind here. If someone uses an {{unblock}} template, they are presumably blocked, and it's not hard to check out why. Please keep in mind that a blocked editor cannot edit pages other than their own talk page, and I don't see how the removal of a block notice constitutes by itself disruptive editing of one's own talk page. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I would contend that this is much ado about nothing, i.e. who cares. The software will already indicate that the person is blocked in a number of places (and the blocked user can't control that), and so who cares if the template is there? If they remove it, that means they've seen it and acknowledged that it's there, and so whether they want to keep it there or not is their business. No need for another obnoxious template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the "user allowed to remove block-notice?" issue separate from the "warning/template for removing block-notice?" if it's not permitted behavior. The former is a long-running debate at Wikipedia talk:User pages, better to keep that topic there instead of spreading it to other places. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Template color
Just out of curiousty, why is the "username soft block" warning (uw-ublock) template orange backgrounded, while "promotional username soft block" (uw-softerblock) is blue? The blue is more in line with the "softer" part, I'd think - shouldn't all the softerblock templates be blue? - The BushrangerOne ping only08:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Child friendly messages
I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this suggestion but here goes: Due to recent issues over the last 3 weeks, I've been doing some intensive page patrolling (again). There appears to be an increase in totally unacceptable pages from minors, and this may be due to the start of the new semester and access to schools' free use of the Internet. Not all these pages constitute blatant vandalism, but are often due to an obvious lack of comprehension that Wikipedia is not a social networking site for juniors. Bearing in mind the current efforts to reword our templates, develop a new landing page for new users, and to create a brand new control panel for patrollers, I think we should now be considering a set of child friendly set of templates. Although many of the vandals will never contribute seriously to the encyclopedia, there is a good chance that some will in the future. These are not drafts for templates, but they are examples on the lines of what I envisage:
On new page creation
Hi (username), and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed the page you made at (pagename) wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia, and it will shortly be deleted (if it hasn't been already). Do consider writing a decent article that belongs here, but remember that Wikipedia is not SpaceBook, MyFace, a blog, or a forum so don't waste your time writing about yourself or your friends, or some game that was made up in the schoolyard. It's probably best to write a good article in your Sandbox and get another editor to check it for you. Please read Advice for younger editors, and if you need any help, you can always drop a note on my talk page ~~~~
On vandalism
Hi (username), and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the edit you made at (pagename) wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia article, and it has been removed. By all means make truly appropriate edits but do remember that Wikipedia is a very serious place. If you want to make joke edits, it's probably best to make them on another website where they won't do any harm. Please read Advice for younger editors, and if you need any help, you can always drop a note on my talk page ~~~~
Those seem a little condescending. I also don't think they're really necessary. I know that I for one was smart enough to be able to read and understand the regular warnings when I was younger, and didn't appreciate being talked down to. I have a feeling the same goes for others as well. Besides, there's not much difference between this and a level 1 warning, so why reinvent the wheel? SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
In this particular case, we're talking about spamlinking, so {{uw-spam1}} will do. "If you're looking for the facts" right in the middle of a reference means {{uw-npov1}} as well. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I never noticed till now that the default explanation in Template:Uw-advert1 links to the Wikipedia article Soapbox and not to the Wikipedia policy of the same name, WP:SOAPBOX. In order to get that, the reader (who may well be new editor unfamiliar with WP navigation) has to find the link in the hatnote on Soapbox? Would it not be more efficient and less circuitous to take users right to the appropriate guideline? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
There should be a warning for putting TV guide like material on Wikipedia, for instance maybe like over coverage on what a channel airs and when, as there isn't really anything like this in the tables right now which fits that discription. I was thinking something like this:
Please stop treating Wikipedia like a TV guide, as you did at BBC One. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I don't see how that could be considered vandalism as defined by policy, especially if the template would be a level 1 warning or single-level template. {{subst:uw-v1}} doesn't even mention vandalism or link to the policy. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 15:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like it is more of a possible content/style dispute. I can see how one could assert that this type of coverage is not notable but am not sure '"TV-Guide-ism" would be considered vandalism. Were there any particular edits that would be examples of this type of editorial behavior? Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
In Template:Uw-spamublock, is it worth noting that the account is used, aside from intended, for promotional purposes? I believe not; as far as I know, mainly using an account for promotional purposes does indicate that it's the account's intended use. HeyMid (contribs) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
New text.
I feel like the warning is more encouraging test edits than discouraging them, so I would suggest that it be revised in order to discourage people from making test edits. I propose the following text for the warning:
Welcome and thank you for you contributions. However, Wikipedia is not used for test edit, like the one you made to , so it has been reverted, or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
The text at Template:Uw-3rr states "Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block." This phrase does not, IMHO, actually match the text at WP:3RR. The WP:3RR page, for example, does not use the phrase "immediate block" nor does it use any phrase which could be interpreted that way. I propose we bring the template text more into line with the actual phrasing of WP:3RR and change it to read:
Making more that three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period may result in a block
That seems to more accurately match the statements at the policy page. I would also like to add the statement:
You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
These two proposed changes can be considered seperately for discussion if you all prefer. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron3203:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't mind merging the two templates; I have never actually used the 3RR template and never reference it ever when warning a user or blocking a user for edit warring; but I do recognize that many people do use the template and reference the policy page; I just feel that since we do have the template, the text should more accurately reflect the policy page it references. --Jayron3203:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had to use both templates on different occasions. Anyway, the proposed changes look good, but why remove "almost always"? SwarmX08:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Language which indicates a programmatic response to behavior (action A results in consequence B) gives the false impression that blocks are programmed "punishments" metted out for specific "offenses", and implies that humans are not necessary to read and interpret a situation and make good judgements about when to issue a block and when not to. While, absent any of the standard exceptions, 3RR usually results in a short block, there are too many variables involved to say "always" or "almost always" (in such a case, the qualifier "almost" is a useless word; most people read that as "always"). I am uncomfortable giving the impression that blocks are punishments, and the current wording gives an impression that 3RR is some "crime" for which a block is a semi-automatic "punishment", rather than giving the correct description, which is 3RR is an indication of potential disruption to the proper working of the encyclopedia, which an administrator may be asked to investigate to see if a block is an appropriate response to stop said disruption to return the encyclopedia to good working order. That many, or even most, 3RR events result in blocks is for me irrelevent in a warning. Ideally, if someone has been warned, they should not be then blocked instantly if they have not committed a further violation (i.e. all users should be given the chance to heed a warning). The 3RR text, as it reads now, implies that the warning is a precursor to the coming block, and that such an event is inevitable. We should, instead, always give the warned user a chance to self-correct, and by changing the wording from the stern "almost always grounds for an immediate block" to "may result in a block", the less-stern wording gives the warned user the correct impression, which is that the block is not necessarily forthcoming if the user instead changes their behavior. --Jayron3215:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well said! Blocking exists to prevent further disruption. We're not out to "get" someone or "get rid of" someone with blocking. The revised template doesn't give the impression that anyone's hands are tied regarding a specific course of action, and likewise, it indicates that there is discretion in the process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the current wording gives a very "automated" impression, and could be taken to mean that Wikipedia's server automatically blocks any user that makes more than three reversions within 24 hours, when this is obviously not the case. I would suggest that "may result in a block" be changed to "will very likely result in a block" or something along those lines, to make it more clear that if they do not heed the warning and continue to make reversions past 3RR or continue to do so without discussion, that a block is likely, not just possible. - SudoGhost02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I still don't like "will very likely". The idea behind a word like "may" is that it is value neutral; it doesn't predict likelyhoods. The warning template doesn't need to indicate the odds of a block coming, it just needs to let the user know that their behavior is disruptive and what action may be taken to stop the disruption (for the record, a template isn't even needed for this, but that's a discussion for another day). That's why I specifically chose a word like "may" (a word like "could" might also be a good alternative, but it doesn't seem to be much of a difference). --Jayron3203:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Jayron32 again - this is the same reason we changed the level 4 and 4im warnings to say "you will be blocked from editing" to "you may be blocked from editing". It doesn't prescribe an automatic course of action that will then make us potentially look bad if the allegedly automatic action is not taken. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but I think "may" seems to give the impression this is the point at which administrators are then able to block, and that you "may not" be blocked until 3RR is reached. I think it should be reworded so that it doesn't appear to be "automatic", but still make it clear that 3RR is typically handled differently than non-3RR edit warring, because they are, and both templates saying "may be blocked" doesn't convey this. You may be blocked for edit warring, but you are much more likely to be blocked for such if you pass 3RR, and I think this should be spelled out clearly in the template for editors that don't know this. WP:3RR's wording is "...often leads to a block." I think this should be reflected in the template. Most non-stale reports on WP:3RRNB that violate 3RR usually result in some action, either the page being protected or one or more editors being blocked. Some new editors, for either lack of understanding of how things happen here, or other reasons, will push their edits by reverting as much as they can until they're faced with a situation where they feel they need to stop, and if the template beats around the bush, they are much less likely to heed this, which just causes further disruption. - SudoGhost12:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that's why I proposed the second addition, reminding people that they may still be blocked for edit warring (as an aside, your description of people believing in an entitlement to 3 reverts per day is exactly why, for years, I have never mentioned the 3RR situation in any warning or block. Since 3RR is a subset of edit warring behavior, and edit warring is itself enough to merit a block, then I don't find any use of mentioning 3RR. But that's neither here nor there). What about rewording the template completely, something like this:
"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, please go back and undo your own last revert, and instead of reverting, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
This captures the essense of 3RR, allows editors an "out" where if the undo their own last revert and immediately go to discuss, they can avoid a block (as recommended at WP:3RR and reminds them that they may still be blocked even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Ideas? Comments? Tweaks? --Jayron3214:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm very tired, so I'll come back to respond to it when I'm more awake to respond, but while I was thinking about it I wanted to suggest that perhaps the part of 3RR, where it says "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." should be mentioned in some form on the template, because I can't count how many discussions at WP:3RRNB have been something along the lines of "well I didn't violate 3RR because I was only reverting part of it". I think if that is mentioned in the template it would maybe cause less edit warring, because confusion about that part seems common. - SudoGhost15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Instructing someone to undo their own revision, no matter how well-intentioned, feels like we're treating our editors like children. Refer them to the discussion page and request that they discontinue the behavior - fine. Explicitly tell them to undo their own last revert - no. We're not in elementary school, folks, and there are no "teachers" in this group. Besides, it will still be The Wrong Version for someone. Better for all parties to just put down their weapons and stop editing the article altogether and head to the talk page. As long as the edit warring has stopped and all are sitting around the table discussing, then there's no need for a block of anyone, after all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty, let's try this on for size:
"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
I like! A couple more copyedits and I think we've got it:
"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
Basically, as mentioned in {{user appropriate}}, we overuse the words "appropriate" and "inappropriate in such a way as to render them as meaningless fluff. This message contained "appropriate" twice. Both uses have been replaced with more meaningful language. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I like it, it's much better than the current version. The only thing I would suggest is adding a very short definition of 3RR to it. It tells people they're about to break 3RR, but doesn't tell them what it is, and many editors apparently don't click on the links, so many people will not know what 3RR is from what is given in this template. - SudoGhost02:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's try this, then:
"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
Most of the 3RR rule is copied verbatim anyway, and this just adds the first sentence to that chunk of text. Seems pretty sound to me. I also made a couple of minor copyedits. How's it look? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about losing the prominent "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right" line, which always seemed like a good way to emphasise that the content of the edit isn't necessarily at fault, it's just the behaviour that's unhelpful. --McGeddon (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm late to this party, but wanted to leave my thoughts anyway. I agree with McGeddon about that one line. Also, will you (all) consider breaking the text up into two paragraphs for greater legibility? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right" part. As for being split, I think a good place for a paragraph break would be right after "Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block." - SudoGhost20:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
First off, I have added the paragraph break where suggested, as that seems non-controversial enough to just do without further discussion. I just didn't know where folks wanted it.
That said, I don't really care either way about the "even if you think you are right" text. Where exactly would you want to reinsert that passage? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Though, playing devil's advocate here, isn't this kind of a "duh" statement? I don't know anyone who edit wars to do something that they believe that they are wrong about. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ha, 'duh' could placed in half of my edit summaries. You are correct, of course, but edit-warriors do tend to forget that it doesn't matter if they're right... (I'll look at the break in a bit, after dinner--in the meantime, thanks for your help in this and other matters.) Drmies (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I've seen a few discussions on WP:3RRNB that essentially boiled down to "Well I wasn't edit warring because they were wrong!" or "They were destroying the article! I was just protecting it!" However, while I think the "even if you believe you are right" wording would be helpful in the template, I don't think it's detrimental to omit it either. - SudoGhost19:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Malformed edits to taxonomy templates
Hi; not sure if I'm supposed to request this or just do it myself, but I use Twinkle a lot when monitoring the User:Taxobot watchlist. This watchlist is a public watchlist watched by members of the WP:TAXFORCE for vandalism or malformed edits. While it's easy to find an appropriate warning for obvious vandals, we don't have any warning templates that really apply to the malformed edits.
It would be really nice if we could add some Twinkle-compatible user warning templates for these cases of malformed edits.
Here are messages that could be used (I'm not as experienced with UW design, so feel free to wikify them!):
Welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your attempts to help keep scientific classifications on Wikipedia thorough and up-to-date, your recent edit to the code at Template:Taxonomy/Homo doesn't fit the format required for the taxonomy templates to function properly, so someone has reverted the change. Please have a look at the automatic taxobox documentation where you can find answers to frequently-asked questions as well as guidelines for tweaking the taxonomy templates. If you need further assistance, consider asking for assistance. Thank you!
Your recent edit to Template:Taxonomy/Aves appears to have either confused or broken the scientific classifications listed on one or more articles. Please review the automatic taxobox documentation before continuing to edit the taxonomy templates, and if you need assistance, the folks at the automatic taxobox talk page would be happy to help. Thank you!
Please stop making edits to the taxonomy templates that do not follow the standard format, as you did Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus. Malformed edits to the taxonomy templates can damage several articles at once, so it is important you understand the guidelines for editing them or request assistance before making any more changes to them.
This is your final warning. Further malformed edits to taxonomy templates, as at Template:Taxonomy/Animalia, will result in your account being blocked.
Great idea! We should create something like this in the near future. A bit of tweaking and I think we've got:
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. While we appreciate your attempts to help keep scientific classifications on Wikipedia thorough and up-to-date, your recent edit to the code at Template:Taxonomy/Homo doesn't fit the format required for the taxonomy templates to function properly, and it has been reverted or removed. Please have a look at the automatic taxobox documentation where you can find answers to frequently-asked questions as well as guidelines for tweaking the taxonomy templates. If you need further assistance, consider asking for assistance. If you wish to make test edits, please do them in the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop making edits to the taxonomy templates that do not follow the standard format, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus. Continuing to disrupt the taxonomy templates may lead to your account being blocked. Thank you.
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Looks pretty good! I'm not sure I like the wording I provided on the third warning, though... "Please stop making edits to the taxonomy templates that do not follow the standard format"...there seems to be a grammatical disagreement there, suggesting that the template is wrong instead of the edit. It could use some rewording so it is clear that the edits don't follow the standard format. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed yes there is a problem with the level 3 warning at the moment, let me try the level 3 warning again:
Please stop making disruptive edits to the taxonomy templates, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus. Continuing to disrupt the taxonomy templates may lead to your account being blocked. Thank you.
If I might make a suggestion about the level 2 template, the initial wording seems a little too harsh, in my opinion. Accusing editors of disruption in a level 2 template, even if true, seems inappropriate. Level 2 templates assume neither good nor bad faith, but disruption is usually a pattern of editing, and a level 2 template isn't typically used after a pattern. Just my 2 cents. - SudoGhost19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the code at Template:Taxonomy/Aves does not match the format required in order for the taxonomy system on Wikipedia to function properly and effectively. Edits to these templates can affect anywhere from a handful to thousands of articles, so please familiarize yourself with the automatic taxobox documentation before continuing to edit the taxonomy templates. Iif you need assistance, you can try asking at the automatic taxobox talk page. Thank you.
I think that's much better, thank you. I don't think the length is a problem, as it explains why the edit was a problem, instead of just saying that there was a problem. - SudoGhost19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem is with that design is that it seems to make the level 2 warning too much like the level 1 warning (level 2 warnings usually start with "please refrain from" or similar), and, because it starts with the example of where the user went wrong, the level 2 warning's opening would have to be refactored significantly for it to be compatible incase no example is provided. Mind if I revise my original plans;
Please refrain from making edits to the taxonomy templates that do not match the requirements for the taxonomy system to work properly, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Aves. Before making any further edits to the taxonomy templates, it is advised that you review the automatic taxobox documentation, and if you need assistance, you can try asking at the automatic taxobox talk page. Thank you.
Wisely put. Unfortunately, that puts us back at the grammatical ambiguity. Perhaps this (a mix-and-match of previous versions) works?
Your recent edit to the code at Template:Taxonomy/Aves does not match the format required in order for the taxonomy system on Wikipedia to function properly and effectively. Before making any further edits to the taxonomy templates, it is advised that you review the automatic taxobox documentation, and if you need assistance, you can try asking at the automatic taxobox talk page. Thank you.
Alright then, we've reached an agreement. I am going to make a set of warnings for disruptions to the taxonomy templates. The final level of the warning would merge with Template:Uw-generic4. I'll let you know once I'm done. EpicWikipedian (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Finished the set of templates, I think I did a pretty good job of it. You'll now see that on the table of templates, below "Uploading unencyclopedic images (image vandalism)", there is now an extra option called "Disrupting the taxonomy templates". Note that you will have to type in the code each time you wish to use it, so in other words you can't use Twinkle. Have fun with my creations! EpicWikipedian (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, but that is indeed too inside-baseball. Apparently I have to suggest new features in a different site where I would need to create another account just to request a single feature once which I don't really want to do. Also, I'm not one of Twinkle's mainteneers, let alone have Twinkle at all. EpicWikipedian (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh, it's borderline. They pretty much all end "thank you". It starts coming across as a little sarcastic around {{uw-upv}}, but any overly-civil message can be taken sarcastically when it's posted in response to bad behavior, and the alternative is to sound curt. If you want to ensure it's not taken a way it isn't intended though, we could always change it to this:
Suggestion for new templates regarding off-topic religious comments
When a user inserted The Creator of the Earth made the earth into History of the Earth, none of the existing templates seemed to convey what I wanted to say, so I winged it with this message. Should we add a series of templates that would be appropriate for responding to this kind of edit? Peter Chastain (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this template's message is supported by the block policy in relation to disruptive editing. Was there any discussion prior to the creation of this template? I can't see anything obvious in the talk page archives. opinions? Perhaps a candidate for TFD? Pol430talk to me22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it'll go there immediately. When we're at level 4, there's not much of a difference between disruption and vandalism. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, although I have removed the links, in the table, to the vandalism templates because the disruption templates were designed to specifically deal with disruptive editing that is not vandalism. By including links to vand4 and vand4im I feel that sends a message: that continued disruptive editing becomes vandalism automatically. Which, according to WP:DDE, it does not. Pol430talk to me16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
IMDB
If a user is continuously adding ImDb content to articles, which is by policy not allowed in Wikipedia, which warning should I use? X.OneSOS08:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Assuming you're not talking about linking to IMDB but rather using IMDB as a source, there isn't really a suitable template for that, but you could perhaps leave a brief message on the user's talk page explaining that IMDB is not a reliable source, citing WP:IMDB/RS. - SudoGhost14:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
On the article that I monitor ("edit" doesn't quite sound right since there's not too much to do with it), a number of people are editing biased information into the article nearly continuously. If I need to specify I can, but my question is this:
I haven't been using a template because it doesn't really seem necessary. While the edit IS biased, and actually could be considered controversial (it has caused wars on other sites), I don't know that it really warrants banning since it's more of an annoyance than anything (although one user that insists on it has made the same edit to the page 30 times in 6 months...). I actually spoke about it on my userpage citing the reason the edit keeps being removed is because:
" *There is still no definitive proof, not by what Wikipedia considers proof.
It is in fact biased. Newcomers to the show are not given the chance to watch and form their own opinion of the pairing.
The edit uses weasel words, which is another no-no.
It often uses words like "seems" or "appear" in order to weasel the reader into taking the statement as fact when it is unconfirmed."
I've been an editor for only a month, so I wasn't there for the initial edits; and while we (all the other editors and me; not just me and that same user I mean) do keep going back and forth, I'm not sure I'd call it an "edit war" since it's not gotten out of hand. (Although 30 times in 6 months and having to create a section on it on my userpage? Maybe it is out of hand and I'm just blind...)
I guess what I'm asking is since it's more of an annoyance and not yet escalated to war status, should I be using a template or issuing actual warnings? Right now, I'm just alerting them to the fact it was undone and why, but do you think it's really risen to vandalism status yet? And is there any reason to create a "stop being annoying" template? (30 times in 6 months? And before you say anything, yeah, I'm using the warning template next time if I don't have to ban them eventually. If I'd known that when I started, they WOULD have been banned a long time ago. [I'm aware they get a few warnings first, I'm not jumping any guns, here.]) After reading the Vandalism page on here, I guess I won't, but the edit has numerous problems is the reason it keeps being reverted. The frequency of it, though... heck, that's why I asked you guys...
SmallCheez (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Edited SmallCheez (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you very much. I knew that templates involved code, and I'm terrible at code (even copying and pasting; sadly I manage to get something wrong), and just typed out messages. Glad to know I did the right thing even though I didn't know what it was. Anyways, it hasn't happened since the last revert, and hopefully, it won't happen again until the content can be confirmed (or denied). Same IP= Dispute resolution; different IP= "Please don't do that" (and then Dispute Resolution if repeated).
You may have noticed that I had changed the phrase "Your test worked" in the revision that you reverted. This wording, it seems, is merely being inappropriate to our contributors, and it violates the Wikipedia policies Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newbies. If you are trying so hard to assume good faith and not bite our contributors, then why would this work for you? Think about it. Bulldog73talkda contribsgo rando19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following you. I don't see how telling someone that their test edit worked is biting them or displaying a lack of good faith. In fact, I've always been a fan of the uw-test1 template because it seems to be one of the least bitey templates available. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're using a level 1 warning template, that means you're still assuming good faith. If you're in a situation where the lack of good faith is blatant, you may go directly to a level 2 template, which does not talk about a test that worked. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The "Your test worked" wording seems to me to be completely assuming good faith, meaning that they were not making their changes maliciously, but were being bold and "testing" how editing Wikipedia works. I'm not seeing how this isn't assuming good faith? - SudoGhost08:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
But it may not be a test edit but a serious effort to improve Wikipedia resulted in a bad form because of unfamiliarity with Wiki coding or accidentally hitting a wrong button. Calling an edit "test" certainly is not an assumption of bad faith, but the assumption of "testing" still may be somewhat WP:BITEy. "You have successfully edited a page on Wikipedia." or something that does not use "test" may be better. --Kusunose01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If it was unclear if it was a test or not, uw-test1 (or similar) would not be appropriate in that case. However, there are situations where, when assuming good faith, the edit appears to be a test, such as when people add '''Boldtext''' ''italics'' to articles (Example). If that situation isn't the case, than the template doesn't apply. There are many templates that would be inappropriate if misapplied, I don't think that makes any of them WP:BITEy. - SudoGhost07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
In interest of consensus building: I don't see that the phrase "Your test worked" is bitey or patronising. In the case of an apparent test edit it seems entirely appropriate to highlight it as such. Pol430talk to me10:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That would render the current template: "You have edited a page on Wikipedia, and it has been reverted or removed."—something of a mixed signal? Additionally, that would remove any specific reference to test editing from the template. You could, of course, reword the template to accommodate the new phrase, although it is likely that this would lengthen template, making it less concise. TBH I think this revision is perfectly acceptable; but fail to see that the original text was in any way bitey. Pol430talk to me11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The rest of the template would read something like "...for one reason or another, your edit didn't appear to improve the page, and was reverted or removed. If you disagree, or have a question, feel free to ask on my talk page. If you'd like to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, please see our welcome page. To make experimental edits, please use the sandbox. Thanks."
I personally don't see the value in making the template more concise. For many new editors, this will be their first interaction with another Wikipedian; should we not go out of our way to try to make it a good one? Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If the wording "your test worked" doesn't apply, then uw-test1 doesn't apply, and another template would probably be better instead. I don't see it as being too concise, because only a very specific type of edit would, in my opinion, warrant this template. - SudoGhost19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think this template is BITEy; the problem is that "test" is interpretive and jargony. Calling the template "test" is fine — but telling users that their edit was a "test" is not helpful, in my opinion. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)20:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a test edit, then they know it was. How about something like this?
Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to example article name was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the article, the edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
I'm sure that exact wording would be objected to by someone, but it was my attempt at saying "your test worked" without actually saying it. - SudoGhost20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this would be a good replacement. I would just change "further" to "with editing" to avoid implying that the first edit was an experiment. I like that your version explicitly says the edit was successful, since this is sometimes a point of confusion for new users who have their edits reverted. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed uw-test1 and tested it to make sure the formatting was correct. Everything looks correct, but additional eyes on it would be appreciated. - SudoGhost20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a trivial bit of parser function coding to make the message namespace-sensitive, and it's usually going to have the pagename supplied as the {{{1}}} parameter. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, the template being used for non-article namespace edits never even occurred to me. Thanks for catching that and clearing it up. - SudoGhost10:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
{{uw-editsummary}} seems patronizing
The uw-editsummary contains the wording, "which you forgot to do". It seems unlikely that they forgot, given the reminder that is given when an edit is saved without a summary. Maybe they thought edit summaries are optional, or maybe they just didn't understand their importance. I would suggest something more along the lines of:
" Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to article-name does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!"
Valid point. Your second sentence is an improvement on the existing second sentence. Otherwise, I think the rest of the existing template is OK. As an aside, you may want to drop a note about this proposal at WT:TW, as this template is used by Twinkle.--Kubigula(talk)02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The change suggested by User:Peter Chastain seems fairly uncontroversial; I was about to go ahead and make the changes, but I'm having difficulty incorporating the suggested sentence around the existing parser functions. Can anyone more savvy with parser functions find a work around? Pol430talk to me23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the recent change to this template, because a short clear text had been replaced with an essay-ish explanation of copyright concerns that duplicates content of Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is sufficiently linked in the original message. "send the pertinent authorization notice from the address associated with the site manager" and "our policy regarding copyright is non-negotiable" does not belong in a notification. "If it's not wrong, don't fix it" applies here in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if there is a good template to warn/notify users when they add personal information or information not referring to encyclopedic people/groups to articles. Examples of such edits are this and this (I just picked the article on today's date, but I'm sure you can see how similar pages are in the same situation).
I was hoping there would be a warning template such as "Please do not add personal information about unencyclopedic people or groups to articles..." but I don't seem to be able to find one here on en.wiki. (As a reference, I was looking for something along the lines of this one on it.wiki). Thanks, --Mark91it's my world14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Last time I raised issues about unexplained changes to this template, the result was flatly reverted because I and another editor hadn't thought to look up a discussion at WP:COI. I raised the same remarks there but they've been ignored. If anyone interested in warning templates wants to take a look, it seems the discussion is better had where the WP:COI regulars can see it. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
We can A/B test the two different versions if there's really argument about it, but based on past test results, I would strongly recommend the new, shorter version be used. Also, communication in user talk templates tends to be more effective if you don't use strong directive language (e.g. you have to comply with this policy, you must go read this thing). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Wikia's Yellowikis" site doesn't seem to exist anymore (at least not at that URL). I've changed the link to point to http://wikicompany.org/ .. No objection if someone wants to remove the site suggestion part altogether. -- Ϫ07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Uw-sandbox
I just happened across the {{uw-sandbox1}} template message series. They are at the moment broken in various ways, but I don't think they are useful in the first place. Opinions? Amalthea18:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
They do seem to be overshadowed by other uw templates. However, I was comparing uw-sandbox2 to uw-vand2, which does say "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Perhaps that should be clarified? It would be confusing to get a uw-vand2 template telling you go to to the sandbox to make the edits, and then to get a uw-sandbox template for doing exactly what uw-vand2 suggested. I know WP:Sandbox has the message saying "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandboxes." but it may be overlooked, they may see "Welcome to the sandbox, here's how to edit, blah blah blah" and think "I know how to click Edit, so I don't have to read all this. *skip*" and miss the part about offensive/libelous content. - SudoGhost19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Additional parameter for user warning templates
For user warning templates such as {{uw-vandalism1}} which are placed on user talk pages for a specific edit made, I suggest providing an additional parameter which allows users placing these warnings to provide a link to a diff of that edit. This allows the warned user or any other person visiting that page to know which edit in particular has resulted in the warning, not only the name of the article. Jfd34 (talk | contribs) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Retaliatory reversion
Is there a user talk page template for users who engage in retaliatory reversion? In other words, if user A makes inappropriate edits that get reverted by user B, user A retaliates by reverting some of user B's good edits. If there isn't, should there be a template for this? mwalimu59 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that's just plain disruptive editing. If we created a separate template for every kind of disruptive editing, it would just add to the clutter. Use a generic template, and state in your edit summary what you feel the problem is (mindful of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, of course). --Orange Mike | Talk16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. I am aware that this page is not fully protected, however, at my level, I cannot edit this page. I am proposing a couple of edits at Template talk:Uw-vaublock/sandbox (which I am requesting be moved to Template:Uw-vaublock/sandbox, which I could not create due to restrictions).
I was able to propose one edit with improved language. The other edit which I wish to propose I was not able to because I could not figure out which code was causing the text to appear. I request that the redundant "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)" be removed, with the bold "blocked indefinitely" linked to be "blocked indefinitely". Therefore, all links will be in place without redundant text. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. It also appears that Arthur Rubin has handled the request. I'm disabling the requested edit template. If you need further assistance, please feel free to re-enable it. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥01:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:sandbox vs MyPage:Sandbox
Hi, I just changed the template Template:uw-vandalism1 to advise the people to use their personal sandbox instead of the general WP:sandbox. But I am wondering, since most of the vandalism warning I give, if not all, are to IP adresses, if IP adresses also have a private sandbox, and if not, where will the Special:MyPage/sandbox redirect... If IP adresses cannot have a personal sandbox, could it be possible to redirect registered users to their sandbox and IP adresses to the general sandbox? Oh and BTW, if IP adresses do not have a personal sandbox, you should then undid my change on the template... Sorry if it was inappropriate. --XonqNoppTk09:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand all the code here. Aren't the instructions supposed to be placed on a separate sub-page? I'd like someone to place {{uw-coi-username}} in a See also section here. __meco (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So does anyone have any issue with the way these are worded, or any objection to placing them in the multi-level templates table? - SudoGhost19:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Additional edit request for deletion warning templates
This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Hello. Many users appear to remove references from pages as well, therefore, I believe that a mention of that should be included in the warnings.
See the sandboxes that I have created to demonstrate how I wish for the templates to look:
Please also note that I created them in the talk space due to technical restrictions. An established editor should move them to the Template: space. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, what you're suggesting is going from:
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Please do not remove content, templates, or references from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
If that's the case, the issue I'd have with it is that references are content.
Templates are a special case because they're informational notices (which many editors—particularly novices—don't consider to be content, as such), but that doesn't really apply to references. If we mention references, then we'll have to also mention categories, formatting, and so on… all of which are, at their heart, just content. But that's just my opinion.
Reasonable statement, however, the template does mention content to cover all of what you specified. The objective of adding references as a mention is because it appears to be the third most common target of removals, therefore, it should be stated as an example. By the way, the pages I have created for the sandbox should be moved into the Template: space. I could not do so due to technical restrictions. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We could just say "Please do not remove anything from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Seems like a valid statement. And it covers... anything. Equazcion(talk) 07:45, 30 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it would be incredibly reasonable to say "Please do not remove anything from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Edit summaries are encouraged; however, they are not required. The only time that a reason is "required" (not by a rule but by de facto editing standards) is when a removal of information is contentious. Vandalism reversions don't require a reason.RyanVeseyReview me!06:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears like you are saying that with content removal comes a removal of the references associated with the content. In that instance, it is unnecessary to clarify that the references should not be removed because it was a content removal at its core. If there are specific examples of references exclusively being removed then a new warning should be created warning editors not to remove references. I believe the combination of the issues here is unnecessary because they are for two entirely separate events.RyanVeseyReview me!06:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph doesn't flow well, so far as it concerns "copyrighted text". Otherwise, that looks good, and I don't see a reason not to make it a proper UW. AGK[•]11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
{{uw-vandalism4}} and {{uw-vandalism4im}} threats seem pretty meaningless. They are often posted on user talk pages by people who are not administrators and therefore cannot back up their threats. And the templates do not add the user pages to any category that might alert administrators. I have seen one case recently where a last warning was immediately followed by further vandalism to the same page. What is there left to do for a non-administator? Post a notice saying "I mean it. Put that mouse down. Put it - are you listening to me?" RockMagnetist (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In other words, the admins who monitor WP:AIV won't act unless they see they offending user has been warned sufficiently. —Al E.(talk)17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have given out a few dozen warnings and have never heard of this process. Perhaps some documentation should be added to the templates describing what to do if the "Final warning" doesn't work. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding that to the documentation. Editors using the templates would certainly want to be familiar with WP:AIV. I'm not exactly sure how.RyanVeseyReview me!17:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In the case I referred to above, there is the added complication that someone has been rather hasty in giving final warnings. What is the best approach to that? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a situation where I think it would be better not to use a template but rather leave a personalized message. There are a couple of reasons that I don't think a template should be used. First, the instances are pretty situational. Second, the editors leaving vandalism templates are normally regular contributors so it would violate Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.RyanVeseyReview me!17:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
O.k., I left a personal message, and added a {{uw-vandalism2}} warning on the vandal's page (pretending that the previous message was level 1). It looks a bit silly, but documents the vandalism. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Good point. From that page: "Note that it is not necessary to use all four warning templates in succession, nor is it necessary to incrementally step through the warnings." Deciding which template to use can be as much art as it is science. Over time, one gets a sixth sense about these things, and it becomes intuitive which template to use. In cases of unambiguous vandalism that significantly harms the article, I generally skip the level-1 template because I'd prefer to omit the "Welcome to Wikipedia" language. Beyond that, it's really a judgment call. Some vandalism is so disruptive or is conducted on such a large scale that it's best to go directly to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. I can't speak for the admins who respond to WP:AIV reports, but my experience has been that they're pretty diligent about checking user contributions and don't need to see the full gamut of warnings before issuing needed blocks. Rivertorch (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No further warnings to this user were warranted. The account is ten months old. In that time, they've made eleven edits, none of them constructive: one reported the death of an unknown party (perhaps an actual living person, perhaps not), two made silly changes to warnings, and the remainder were juvenile penis jokes. It's a vandalism-only account and should be indefinitely blocked as such. One hopes the user will grow up and contribute constructively someday; until then, warning them is clearly a waste of time. Do I need to go jump through the AIV hoops or are any mop-bearers in the house? Rivertorch (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I use {{uw-copyright}} a lot in my new page patrolling, and I have thought of a couple of improvements that could be made. First, it would be really good to have a parameter for the url of the infringing material, so that it's crystal clear what the violation is supposed to be of. Second, a lot of the time, users will write autobiographies or have a conflict of interest, and they will actually own the text that is supposedly a copyright violation. For these cases I think it would be good to include links to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission in the warning message. Do others think this would be a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius♫14:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've added DCM, but RCP is already linked. I tried to add a source or url parameter, but I'm afraid it broke the optional comment. I guess we either suggest that for the optional comment or we ask somebody who actually knows what they're doing to fix it. :) I also removed a redundant wikilink to WP:C. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! (I suppose it would help for me to actually read the template properly before I comment here, whoops...) About breaking the optional comment, I have delved into template programming before, so I might have a look at it when I have a chance. I think making the url parameter work well with Twinkle is probably beyond my skill level though. — Mr. Stradivarius♫16:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say it falls within the formatting of the date, and WP:ERA is part of WP:DATE, which the template currently links to. WP:ERA-style changes occur frequently enough that I think it's fair to specifically mention it in the template. - SudoGhost10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As I've seen it used to refer to WP:ERA changes, and it only mentions strong national ties, I agree. At the moment it's just about month/day/year changes (I think) and some editors might not realise this. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Proposed addition for uw-test1
From:
If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
To:
If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia or, if you have a question about editing, ask at Wikipedia's Help Desk.
Gives them somewhere specific to go to ask questions instead of them having to hunt for the proper way to do whatever they're trying to do. --NeilNtalk to me13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. Since the Help Desk isn't linked from the welcome page or the sandbox, this seems sensible. It probably could just say "the Help Desk"; that's the construction I use when I write a personalized note to a newby. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Shokioto22. It looks like Paravane has a valid reason to remove the Mercury City Tower from the list (i.e. it's not finished yet), so actually it looks like Paravane is right here. You can put the Mercury City Tower in the article when it's completed, which is scheduled to be the end of this year. And for next time, things like this should go on the article's talk page, which in this case would be Talk:List of tallest buildings in Europe. Best — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)09:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The above template I had created over the redirect when my IP address was different. Please update the corresponding templates to show this template in the series (in the documentation) as well as protect it as the others are. Thanks. 69.155.140.221 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Lighter Edit Warring Notice
Hi! I've been warning users for a while now and I think that the edit warring template is a little harsh, especially since most or the people I have seen edit warring are newcomers. It mentions being blocked and features the stop sign (which is only used in level 4 and 4-im notices), which can scare newcomers. I think we should have a new edit warring notice for newcomers with the information symbol that does not mention being blocked. Thank You! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The timing for this content is a bit creepy, actually. :) Earlier today I was thinking about writing an edit warring template specifically for new editors. There are currently two different edit warring templates, template:uw-ew and template:uw-3rr, if one of those can't be softened, we could write a template specifically for new editors. - SudoGhost22:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The other template also mentions blocking, so I don't think it's suitable either for newbies. Could we perhaps make a softer template for newbies violating the 3RR? Thanks! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I think it should mention blocking, so that they're aware of why they should stop edit warring, but softer language certainly wouldn't hurt. For instance, "If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing." can be reworded to say something like "edit warring isn't beneficial to the article/page/whatever and the collaborative process, and editors that continue to revert to their preferred version once it is known that there is a disagreement with the content may be temporarily blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent any disruption caused by edit warring." I'm sure there's a better way to word it (but I'm too tired right now); what I'm trying to get at is a template can say "Hey stop edit warring or you may be blocked" without actually coming across as some kind of ultimatum. - SudoGhost23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I made a (very) rough draft for one at Template:uw-ewsoft, if anyone wants to reword or tweak it as necessary please do so, I think a softer edit warring notice is needed for newer users, because it seems like the current ones seem to exacerbate the situation as often as it helps. - SudoGhost12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the need for this warning, and I have actually thought of making one in the past. I've made a bold re-write of SudoGhost's template - as with his version, see what you like about it, and feel free to tweak it further. Best — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that it might be misleading. I can imagine a new editor seeing it but thinking 'Well, I know I'm right, and it only says 'may be blocked', so I'll carry on." Then if they get reported and blocked, they will understandably feel unjustly treating. Or is there a suggestion they be allowed to edit war a bit longer? I'm not against a softer warning, just that I don't want new editors to get a false sense of security from the template. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair point, perhaps it needs to point out thinking your edits are right (who doesn't?) isn't a reason to revert. Perhaps if "may lead to being blocked" is reworded to "is very likely to result in a block", it would help convey the likelihood of a block, especially with 3RR? - SudoGhost15:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. We definitely need to convey the imminence of a possible block somehow. If we can strike a balance between that and giving good and friendly advice on what to actually do in an edit war, then I'll be happy. I think we can safely bold the "very likely to result in a block" part as well. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't wan't to scare them by threatening a block in bold. Also, I don't think that anyone doesn't care about a block and even if they don't care, they will be blocked just like any editor who violates the 3RR, and the block will stop them from edit-warring for a period of time (however long the Admin sets the block for). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the idea of Template:uw-ewsoft is a good one, but it's too long (TL;DR). Cut it down to less than half that size. Templates need to kept short and sweet. I support the idea of a softer version that can be classed as single issue notice. Keep the stronger version, (template:uw-ew) for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situations, as a single issue warning. template:uw-3rr could be redirected as no longer needed. Pol430talk to me10:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the wording in your sandbox is still a bit much, it feels like it has too much of a accusatory tone. I think the current version at Template:uw-ewsoft isn't too long, because it contains enough information that new user would need to know in an edit warring situation. - SudoGhost16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that the part about finding consensus was removed. I think we need to say something about consensus in the warning, though - if we want this warning to really be effective in stopping new users from edit warring, we need to show them what the alternative is. Is there support for adding a shorter sentence that mentions consensus to the end of the first paragraph? How about this: "Instead of edit warring, please try and find a consensus on the talk page." Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We've got three basic templates for edit warring now, and I wanted to see if maybe we should redirect uw-3RR into uw-ew, since the uw-3RR template seems somewhat redundant? - SudoGhost20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think that's a good idea, although the 3rr template is used by twinkle, so it would be a good idea to get one of the twinkle devs to remove that warning from the drop down list and replace it with ew-soft (in the single issue notices section rather than the warnings section). Pol430talk to me17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait, so now you can no longer warn someone specifically for violating the 3rr rule? That is a pretty big change in practice, and I think its a bad idea. The 3rr warning is such a bright line rule, while edit warring is less clear, it makes a straight 3rr warning much clearer and less subject to dispute. Also, if it stays, documentation at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will need updating. Monty84516:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, the target of the redirect doesn't even mention the 3 revert rule. The template is in no way redundant. Monty84517:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Twinkle has 2 edit warring warnings, but neither is explicit enough about 3RR for my liking. People aren't going to understand this and may feel mistreated. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The template {{Uw-ewsoft}} makes mention of WP:3RR in a softer fashion. If mention of 3rr were inserted into {{Uw-ew}} would that resolve the concerns? It seems that 3 templates on the matter of edit warring is a bit much. We don't want a situation where people are using these as 'incremental' warnings. Of all the templates in the Uw- series the edit warring related templates have been subject to the most controversy and change. They were both heavily revamped last year. Pol430talk to me16:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair point and thanks for the pointer to that VP proposal. Although, violating 3rr comes about through edit warring, and both templates contain a fair amount of mutual language. Perhaps it is {{uw-ew}} that should be redirected to {{uw-3RR}}. Leaving {{uw-ewsoft}} and {{uw-3RR}}? Pol430talk to me18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirecting that way seems less objectionable, but I still prefer the separate warnings that differentiate what the person is being warned for. The uw-3rr does include some none-3rr edit warring language, but is clearly a warning to stop someone from committing/continuing a 3rr violation, and throws in the warning about the more expansive definition of edit warring to discourage gaming. For instance, we maintain a variety of very granular warnings based on other types of conduct, for example {{Uw-vandalism3}} and {{Uw-disruptive3}}, while it would be simple to merge them, there is utility in having the warning be as specific as possible to the conduct being warned for. Monty84516:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Some admins may prefer to give one warning rather than another (3RR rather than EW, or vice versa). Regular editors can also give the warnings, and I don't see why their freedom ought to be restricted. Eliminating one of the warning templates is a bit like forbidding people from doing the warning you personally don't use. We tolerate a diversity of views on how best to warn, and nothing has changed recently in the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys! I was trying to warn someone for edit warring and then I saw our warning as one of the options on Twinkle and used it. Great job! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't on the talk page of that template. Thanks for fixing :) SÆdontalk21:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposing changes to the most common level 1 warnings
Hey everyone, I've started an open request for comment on the topic of the level 1 user warnings. Over at the testing subgroup of WikiProject user warnings, we've completed about six months of A/B testing, and want to start a conversation about whether we make any changes based on the test results. Everyone interested is highly encouraged to add their 2 cents! Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Question about the text in the level 3 vandalism template
The text in the level 3 vandalism template reads: "Please stop your disruptive editing." But on the page which describes vandalism, in the "What is not vandalism" section, it lists disruptive editing. If we have one page that lists something as not necessarily being vandalism, it seems to me that the template message dealing with vandalism shouldn't ask the editor to stop doing that something. Why not just "Please stop your vandalism" ? Thank you. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Editnotice
Do you think it would be a good idea to have an editnotice on this page, reminding users of the fact that they should mention which template they are referring to when posting here? It would be more noticeable than the small box at the top of this page. Here is the proposed notice:
If posting about a specific user warning template, please be sure to identify the template you are referring to.
Actually yes, that seems to happen from time to time; it might help reduce instances of an editor talking about the template on what they thought was that template's talk page, but nobody else knows which one they're talking about, since they didn't know they needed to specify, since they might not have noticed that it redirected them to this centralized page. - SudoGhost23:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Concerning Uw-protect
Hi. I was just directed to the existance of this template for the very first time, despite my being here almost 8 years, and I would like to say that while it's a sad reflection on the state of affairs we find ourselves in, I find it welcome that we have something like this. Could I enquire with you as to whether this is a single issue warning, or whether it is something like a uw-*-im template, as in an immediate cessation of the activity concerned? BarkingFish00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the template's history it's a fairly new one. It's in the single issue warnings section, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking about the cessation of activity. Given the template's subject matter, I'd imagine continued behavior that necessitated the use of the template would probably result in an immediate WP:ANI discussion being opened. - SudoGhost01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Some, such as {{Uw-delete1}}, are poorly worded. "This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content ..." This makes it sound as though I may have unintentionally noticed the edit.
This is correct, but I don't want to go in and tweak it. In fact, I'm not even sure that a little tweak can do it; it seems to me that the syntax here is strained enough already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Current version: ...This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary...
A: ...I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary...
B: ...I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why, so I restored it. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary...
C: ...I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why, though you might not have done so on purpose. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary...
Since I, like countless other users, very frequently issue warnings for reverts which were performed by others, I strongly oppose option B (as well as all other warnings which similarly claim that the warning issuer was also the reverter).
A lot of times, when I issue a level 1 warning, it's an AGF with a wink – I know that the edit most likely was not done in good faith, but I AGF anyways. But I see how something like blanking could easily be done accidentally, so I think it's good to acknowledge that, and my preference would be C. (I know that shorter is considered preferable, so A would also be fine on that basis.) MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think we can go with option A then. I think it's even better than the current version, because it pushes what we actually want the person to do at a minimum (which is explain why they are doing something). Thanks for the comments. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As you probably know, Twinkle allows the user to append text to the end of a template message. However, what I've noticed with the new wording (at least with {{uw-delete1}}) is that it inserts this text between "Thanks," and the signature. Previously, the template ended with "Thank you." (i.e., full stop) so that any subsequent comment was a separate sentence. Now the result is "Thanks, You deleted text that cites its sources. -- Gyrofrog…". I think, at least in this detail, that the old format was better. -- Gyrofrog (talk)22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's a substantial difference between the two options, so if people prefer the version where a note was appended after a full stop, let's switch them back to that. My main reason for switching to "Thanks, ~~~~" is that it seemed better grammar than making the thank you a sentence fragment. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk22:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I gave it a shot, but couldn't get it to appear before the "Thanks,". Maybe ask on the Twinkle talk page? I think the change might need to happen in the script rather than the templates. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk22:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like an argument could be added (optional, of course) that would take the comment and insert it. Then Twinkle would have to be updated to pass the comment to the template. Adding the argument wouldn't be difficult, but I don't know much of Twinkle as far as difficulty in updating accordingly. For an example, try {{User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1}}. I added a second arg to pass the comment. {{User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1||A comment.}} passes a comment without specifying a page, and {{User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1|page|A comment.}} passes both page and comment. --Nouniquenames (talk)
Hello all, I have recently been working on updating the documentation for all of the speedy deletion notification templates. As part of this work, I have found out something a little bit strange: the older templates don't include a section heading by default, but the newer ones that use {{db-notice}} always include one. (By "section heading", I mean the text that says "== Speedy deletion nomination of PageName ==".) Twinkle uses the templates based on db-notice exclusively, so I was under the impression that including a heading was standard behaviour. However, after an exchange on my talk page, I see that I may have been mistaken about this. I plan on upgrading all the templates to use db-notice, but I don't really mind whether we include a section heading by default or not. It wouldn't be too much trouble to change from one to the other - the only technical issue is that we would need to update Twinkle if we wanted to have no heading by default. So what do people think? Section heading by default, or no section heading by default? Best — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)12:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say section header by default - one of the roles of templates is to save time and it already having an informative section header saves time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As one who doesn't use Twinkle, I'd prefer them to be without headers, since I hand type everything. It is a bit faster to use New section instead of Edit. However, if Twinkle users are used to the headers, then default on is fine, too. What matters to me is that they are all consistent so I don't have to remember which one I can use New section with and which one I have to use Edit with. Although it is a bit unusual that the db-notice templates have a default header while the uw-* templates do not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The template's scope is the "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", but the recent changes to the level 1 templates have arbitrarily changed the scope to just "unsourced material". This wasn't really discussed in the RfC, and it creates a minor problem, because both Twinkle and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace have the description of this template as "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", but that's no longer accurate. Either "improperly cited" needs to be addressed in the template, or the descriptions for the template need to be updated. I'm leaning towards having "improperly cited" in the template, as it was part of the scope of the template, but I wanted to discuss it before doing anything one way or the other. - SudoGhost18:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It was not the intention to remove any mention of reliability requirements, so I've made this more clear now. If the issue is not with the reliability of the source but merely that it was improperly cited (e.g. bad markup or in the wrong place) I think the right thing to do is to explain that to the person, rather than making a generic statement via a template about being improperly cited. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Normally I'd just go ahead and change this because the current wording doesn't make any sense, but since there has apparently already been something of an edit war over the matter...
Currently when provided a page, the template links to it with the following wording:
I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to somepage, because it didn't appear constructive.
Now I suppose that is grammatically correct, but it just doesn't make any sense in context - if someone is giving an editor a first-person warning saying they personally reverted their edit(s) and mentioning an article, why would they mention an article besides one on which they reverted the edit(s)? Basically I'm suggesting, per JamesBWatson, that it read like this instead:
I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to somepage because it didn't appear constructive.
Because unless I'm missing something, that actually makes sense. Am I just missing something here? -— Isarra༆18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also strongly against the new wording of "Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. " This is far too close to "I'm the spoilsport who messed with your fun, please troll the crap out of me personally."Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, data from the six months we spent a/b testing this kind of message demostrated that your interpretation is not how new editors hear the new wording. I would encourage anyone with questions or issues to take a look at the RFC where consensus to make these changes was reached. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "such as" makes no sense whatever in this message, and perhaps in some others. As for the advantages of matter-of-fact concise notices over faux-polite, I agree with Andy. The consensus so far has been otherwise--perhaps people are so used to the hypocrisy that they prefer it. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The such as tweak is one that I think would respect the overal consensus of the RFC. The "to somepage" needs to be wrapped in an optional parameter though, since manual applications of the template don't require the page name to be included. The part that I was responding negatively to was the change of the first person voice. Otherwise, I think people should go ahead and try to make the grammar tweak that Isarra and James have proposed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk17:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the reason I posted this here in the first place was because said tweak was already tried and subsequently reverted. Is this the point in the discussion where we consider that resolved and make the tweak in proper Yoda terms ("Do or Do not. There is no try.")? -— Isarra༆17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I just had the opportunity to use the updated {{uw-spam1}}, but I've noticed an issue with the wording. The warning says "I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia" (my emphasis). However, I removed two links from the page in question, so it would be more accurate to say "I wanted to let you know that I removed the external links you added, because to me they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia". Is there a way to update the wording so that it works better in the case of multiple links being added/removed? — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
But there is also lot of spamming that doesn't use external links at all, but is based on keywords, generally mentioning things, and that sort of thing. What of that? It's no more appropriate than the linky kind. -— Isarra༆17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The 'thanks,' at the end of some of the level one user warnings
Is there any particular reason why they oughtn't end with a full stop? Using a comma the way they do that makes them look weird with any signatures using '--' or the like before the name itself (which also includes anything signed using the button on the edit toolbar), and also makes it harder to use the templates and leave a custom message at the same time, since when you use something like this:
{{subst:uw1-whatever}}
Oh, and some message. ~~~~
It winds up looking like this:
Hello, I'm someone with a name. You did a bad thing, but it's okay, just please don't do it again, please. Etc. Thanks,
A suitable alternative might be some other thing, though. -— Isarra༆ 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
They don't end with a full stop because that's a sentence fragment. An exclamation mark would look less funky with the -- pre-sig markup, and would be grammatically correct. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sentence fragments end with full stops same as anything else when not part of other full sentences which end with full stops. But while an exclamation point would solve it, it would still be quite strange in context - why would the average user be that excited over personal attacks? -— Isarra༆19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why the exclamation mark is only applied to the thanks. The thanks is for actually reading the message and following the instructions. Wouldn't you want to say thanks to someone who actually listened and didn't just keep doing whatever? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not with an exclamation point, unless I'm trying to make it clear I'm being sarcastic or some such. But sarcasm is generally unhelpful around these parts. -— Isarra༆22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I noticed this earlier today. Ending with "Thank you." instead of "Thanks," would be far more logical and allow the user to personalise the message without having to make two edits. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal. I would add that the casual "Thanks" is much friendlier than the formal "Thank you". Even a period after "Thanks." makes it sound sterner. For the level one template where we should mostly be assuming good faith (except with uw-npa, etc.) the less formal voice is important. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Template for using non-neutral language in RfC description
For editors involved in fulfilling RfC requests, it would be nice if a warning could be used if an editor should happen to find a request which does not adhere to using non-neutral language in soliciting RfC. For example: "According to WP:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues, description of the issue should utilize neutral language. However, I found your recent RfC issue description to be in violation of this. It is important to be specific in your request for opinion and to abstain from influencing the RfC editor." Or something like that. There could be a second level warning which states "Your recent RfC was written with severe neutrality issues. Please consider having another editor submit a request for RfC to allow the RfC editor to remain content-focused." Zepppep (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this come up enough to warrant a dedicated template? I'm truly asking, and mind you, I actually did come across this issue once before, but I still wonder if it's common enough that you couldn't just write a tailored message on the rare occasion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, particularly if the template included wording about the request failing to be brief. I don't know what the usage numbers might be but creating one would largely be a product of using the wheel, not inventing, it right? What's more, editors requesting a RfC for the first time look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All as an example, perhaps more so than the instructions on how to word a request, and editors are coming to RfC more often than not due to deadlock or after intense discussion, and sometimes that verbiage is carried over into the requests. Anything that can help get the message across would be appreciated. Zepppep (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not involved in creating these templates, but I think Fuhghettaboutit is right. It sounds too automated. It seems like a more personal way of getting around to it is best. If you're trying to defuse a situation, a personal touch is always the best route. I realize that Fughettaboutit's motive may have been slightly different. I'm not trying to speak for you! Lightheadþ05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, while template messages are valuable for dealing with new users consistently, when it comes to more complex applications of policy such as RFC neutrality, a more personalized response is really needed. Perhaps indicating the specific verbiage that is the problem, and how it could be worded more neutrally or otherwise brought in line with policy. Monty84505:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal touches can be included with a template by utilizing "additional text" space. But thanks for your guys' thoughts. Zepppep (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This template needs a tweak. Specifically the function that links to the nominated article needs to be removed. What we are doing now is saying " you have created a completely innapropriate page that should not exist. Here are handy pointers that will be forever preserved on your talk page so people know who you were attacking". In this one and only case, linking to the soon to be deleted article is not appropriate. I recently had to take several suppresssion actions related to the use of this template because, as is often the case with attack pages, even the title itself was not appropriate. I have tried to remove the function myself but apparently I don't know how to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What about piping all references to the page and using a generic descriptor like, This page you created. While it would still leave the attack page name in the wikicode, it would not be visible. Monty84516:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be even worse actually because in a case like the one I recently encountered it was important to completely remove the article title from Wikipedia to the extent that it could not be seen even by administrators. Having it hidden in the code but not visible on the page would mean potentially libelous statements would be preserved there and oversighters would probably not catch it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
To create an accurate but inoffensive link, you could use a full URL to link to the deleted page by its {{PAGEID}} using the ?curid=nnnnnn parameter, or to link to the most recent {{REVISIONID}} of the deleted page using the ?oldid=nnnnnn parameter. For example, to link to the latest version of this page without using the page title: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&curid=31237434 (The magic words do not seem to support automating the IDs for other pages other than the ones on which they are used, but the REVISIONID value can be seen in the "Permanent link" URL in the margin of each page before it is deleted.) — Richardguk (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why nobody is grasping this point, but my contention is that we should not link to the page at all in the notice. Why put up pointers to such content? The person who creates an attack page knows what they did. we don't need to wave a big sign around advertising it so others will see content that is entirely inappropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Beeblebrox on this one even if there is just a link to their contributions, if you want to know exactly what page the problem was in (that is, they don't know) they can ask the deleting admin or the person who left the admin. Why provide a ready made red lik for them the click on and create it again. Plus as Beeblebrox said some of the time the page name is also an issue and needs to be oversighted, why provide more work when it can be, possibly, avoided. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I can go ahead and update the template with the relevant code if people want. It will require changing {{db-notice}}, but it shouldn't be too hard to do. However, if the goal is complete removal of the article title from the user's talk page and its history, then the automatic edit summaries in Twinkle will also need to be adjusted. Because this would require quite a few technical changes, I think we need to open up the discussion to a larger group of people. I'll add an RfC tag to this discussion and see what comments we get. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Linking to attack pages
When notifying users on their user talk page after a page they have created is tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page, should we include a link to the page in the notice or in the edit summary? Please answer Yes or No and include your rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, absolutely not, per Beeblebrox above. Not infrequently the title itself is an attack - "X, the gayest w****r in Blankville" and the like - and even if not, the title usually contains the name of the person attacked. On no account should that be left visible. The existing {{uw-attack}} is fine, and Okeyes has agreed at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation#Warning attackers to use that for the new Page Curation system. Reading lower down, I see that maybe the header for the warning is the issue, but for attack warnings the header too must not link the article title. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox makes some strong points, but at the same time, I think it is important to identify as clearly as possible to an editor being warned what exactly it was they did wrong. While very few creators of page that are tagged G10 are acting in good faith, in the event that they are acting in goodfaith, notifying them that some page they created or contributed to has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, but not giving them any way to know which page it is (without having the expertise to check the contribution history of the notifier or something of the sort), gives them no recourse and doesn't educate them as to which action they took was problematic. In essence, it assumes a G10 nomination getting deleted is a fait accompli. I still would like to find a middle ground; what about having a different template message for page names that are themselves G10 level attacks, while having a link to the nominated page when the page title is not offensive in and of itself? If it had to be a yes/no vote, I'm not sure which side I'd come down on. Monty84504:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If a page is actually deleted per G10 that mans two pairs of eyes, tagger and admin, agree that it is an attack. The response time on attack pages is usually fast enough, thanks to the little red bar on the admin dashboard, that it is very unlikely the page author will not know what page is meant. Page authors often do question the deletion - a frequent line is "It was a joke! He's my friend and doesn't mind!" I think the risk that a good faith contribution is deleted as an attack and the author doesn't know which page it was is negligible, compared to the danger of leaving on view in talk page notices the names of people attacked, linked with the fact that they have been the subject of an attack. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No. I can see the benefit in linking, but it seems a possible risk. I'd like to think our oversighters can manage the "what links here" tool, but that still leaves time with the link (arguably unnecesarily) on the page. I would say that the most commonly used templates (such as the ones Twinkle uses) should not link. If there is a question by the (accidental?) vandal later, then editors can always put a link if necessary and appropriate. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Temporary yes (explanation of temporary included): the primary role of the notice is to provide an editor with a right of objection in case of questionable validity of rationale (is there anybody here who have never seen improper speedy deletions?). Still, once this content is deleted, only the secondary role of the warning — notifying that creation of such pages is unacceptable — remains relevant. Thus I propose to use {{#ifexist}} parser function to display the link until the content is deleted and replace it with generic phrase once deletion came to effect. The links remains visible in source code, which IMO is acceptable compromise between editors' right to contest deletion and target's right to defend itself from such content. And I'm absolutely sure that it is inappropriate to link attack pages in edit summaries under whatever circumstances: edit summaries are ways more visible, and linking attack pages isn't necessary in all cases. I would strongly support short term global bans for such edit summaries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think David's suggestion here is the right solution--it gives the information, and avoids leaving a record of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
NO When I was active, I would link to the article but hide the name of the article so it would not be seen. I never put the name of the article in an edit summary. I went so far as to redact the page name from the templated warning left by the tagger. Didn't think of the "what links here" feature at the time. Lie the concept of giving the information while avoiding leaving a visible trail. Dlohcierekim 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No per Beeblebrox, nothing wrong with giving the unlinked name, providing the name is not also an attack, in which case leave that out, too. I have never seen an editor create an attack page and then not know what article we were talking about. If it ever happens, we can explain. KillerChihuahua?!?21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As with Beeblebrox I'll add my no position as well. If the creator has no idea why their attack page was deleted they can ask the person who left them the message or the admin who deleted it. I don't see a reason to, in any way, link (or state the name of) the attack page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The new wording assumes that the applying ed is also the editor who performed the initial revert. This isn't always the case. I recently had cause to apply this template, and then had to manually re-edit. Please note the difference and take into consideration. RashersTierney (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this was noted during the RfC about the changes. The response was that it is an edge case rather than the norm that you warn someone you did not revert, and that testing showed the advantage of using active, first person voice (instead of the passive third person, e.g. "you have been reverted") was great enough that it was worth the possibility that you could not use the standard template if you were warning someone for another person's revert. Sorry for any confusion or extra work that might have caused you. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How do we deal with these edge cases then? I think restoring the old impersonal notices and warnings (with another name, maybe?) could help solving the issue. The alternative I see is that a number of editors will grow different nonstandard userspace versions for each multilevel warning template, a less desirable scenario. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean forking and having both versions around? I mean, I think people are free to do that just as they are free to create personal versions in userspace. What the RfC was about is not just getting agreement for any change, but that the changes would happen in the default warnings approved by WikiProject User Warnings, which are also what Twinkle and Huggle standardize on. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like these "edge cases" happen more frequently than was alluded to in the RfC. I don't think that this issue was adequately addressed in the RfC, but was rather dismissed as a non-issue. If these default templates are going to stay "first-person only" like this, I think we'll need to restore the old templates under a different name and add them to Twinkle and Huggle as well, because as it stands it seems to be causing more annoyance than it solved. - SudoGhost22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's the restoring to Twinkle and Huggle idea that I have a big issue with. If that happens, no one will use the new versions merely out of habit and old preference, rather than giving the new versions a fair try. During the discussion, the point we made was not just that what's been discussed is an edge case, but that the data from the tests showed that speaking in the first person was vitally important for not biting newbies. The purpose of the level one template is primarily to advise people of their errors while still assuming good faith. The first person voice is the single most important change for making these warnings meet that standard, and I am not comfortable saying we should just ignore the consensus of the RfC and further complicate our vandalfighting tools by doubling the number of options for level one warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk22:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Of all the editors that commented specifically on the lack of third-party use in these templates, you were the only one that didn't have a concern about it. It's the "level 1 is first-person only, even when that makes no sense" thing that's the issue. By trying to fix one perceived issue, it ended up causing another where an editor cannot use a template, because what it's saying is factually inaccurate. The RfC consensus was to use these as the "default", not the "only". - SudoGhost23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to seem dismissive about the fact that first person means you can't use the template for the case where you don't revert but warn. What I'm saying is that the relatively minor inconvenience of having to use a different template or write a sentence or two by hand is worth the gains we get in not biting new editors, as well as more clearly getting the message across about what they did wrong. That opinion is reflected in the consensus that the new versions should be the one used by default by vandalfighters. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a relatively minor inconvenience for you, but not for others. Providing an alternate template that's specifically meant to be used for a third-party situation like this would solve that issue, and would have no effect on the consensus about the default template (as the template name and description in TW/HG would reflect that it's a third-party wording for a specific use). - SudoGhost23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
How about this: we draft a new template specifically for the case of warning without having reverted the person? Something like {{uw-warnonly}} as a single level template. I would be cool with providing that alternative, rather than adding all the old level ones back into the tools. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried thinking of how it would be worded to cover every single level 1 template situation, but it doesn't work. It would be overly generic, which would be a step backwards from the "don't WP:BITE" argument and would be less useful than not leaving a message at all. I don't see any reason why the old ones shouldn't be added; these level 1 templates have a narrower scope and created lack of suitable templates for a specific purpose, the answer to that is to (re)create suitable templates for those specific purposes. - SudoGhost18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Giving people completely generic, impersonal warnings does not work. This was the conclusion of both the template A/B tests (i.e. data collected from thousands of applications) and the consensus among editors in the RFC. I can see how the specific instance where you warn someone but don't revert them is not covered, but I am not going to support sneaking around the consensus of the RFC by readding templates which we demonstrated were not desirable. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have read through the RfC, nothing in it suggests that there is any sort of consensus against third-person templates, the only thing even close to this is that these default templates are first-person. This change created a need for additional templates, because they fulfilled a basic function that is no longer fulfilled. There is no consensus about this, so there cannot be any "sneaking around" a consensus which does not exist. - SudoGhost23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The consensus was to replace the previous defaults with the new ones precisely because they are superior in a variety of ways. Subverting that by adding the old, bitey templates back is not acceptable. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion of the acceptability of this is just that, an opinion. Your changes created a problem, the lack of proper templates for common situations. After dismissing this problem as a non-issue, it ends up being not as insignificant a thing as you believed. This won't affect the RfC or the default templates in any way, and will resolve an issue. I don't see any reason to try to prevent that issue from being resolved. It's not "bitey" in any way to create templates specifically for third-person situations, not by a long shot. I would appreciate it if you didn't use words like "subverting" and "sneaking around", because that's hardly a civil description of someone trying to come up with a solution to a recently created issue, especially when it's being discussed here first; I can't think of a more public place to appropriately discuss uw templates. Discussing it here well before even trying to create the templates is hardly "sneaking around".
There is no consensus anywhere in the RfC that comes anywhere close to saying that third-person tone shouldn't be used when the message is specifically third-person, so there is nothing to "subvert". I'll also note that the closing comments specifically said that these templates were not complete; that the consensus is that these default templates are largely agreed upon, but that additional "tweaks" are needed. - SudoGhost02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"Tweaks" are not changing the narrative voice of the template entirely. As you can see from other threads on this page, I am very much open to tweaking the templates as they are. But you know just as well as I do that if they are provided, most patrollers would happily revert back to old habits instead of using the level one templates which, through many months of hard work, were arrived at as an improvement which many people could agree on. I offered a compromise that would provide a template to specifically address the cases where you warn someone that you did not revert, but with zero data to back up your opinion, you say that's not enough. Well I'm sorry, but it's not okay to waste everyone's time who participated in that RfC by making it easy for patrollers to ignore the consensus that the new templates are what should be used by default. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't follow, and I think there's a misunderstanding about what I'm sayingble to be specifically tailored to that wording. Therefore, although technically some. I never said that they would just be a replica of the old template, only that they would follow the third-person tone the previous templates utilized; however because they would be one for third-person use, they would be aone would be capable of using these templates instead of the default ones, it wouldn't make sense because the wording wouldn't fit; the template would say something along the lines of "another editor reverted" (just like it doesn't make sense for a third-person editor to use the current defaults, because it says "I reverted"). I'm not talking about just copying the old templates and using those. I said the old templates were third-person and since the new defaults are first-person, these "another person reverted but I'm explaining why" specific templates need to go back, not to the old template, but to the third-person tone. - SudoGhost03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, I think having a specific template to address the "I warned them but didn't revert" case is a good solution. I do think the tweaks to uw-vandalism0 suggested on the talk page of the RFC are heading in a good direction, but in general I think this is a good compromise. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand (and don't have patience to read the whole discussion above). Why can't we change the wording from
The reason that's not quite enough is that new or anonymous editors don't all understand the editing process, and that being reverted means that either a person or individual bot reverted them. {{uw-vandalism0}} is in place and being optimized to handle the exception that you warn someone you didn't revert, and it's probably a good idea that we make the wording you're suggestion an option in Twinkle (like checking a box that says, "I didn't revert this person"). But it's really important that, in the case where you do revert someone and warn them (like through Huggle), you make it clear that it was you who did it. This educates new people about how our editorial process works. The data we collected via the testing project showed that when we tell new/anonymous people that a real human being saw their edit and chose to revert it, not some mysterious force that "has" reverted them, that both is less insulting to good faith contributors and more discouraging to vandals. It shows people that there is a community here, and that we're paying close attention. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I helped a user who had been blocked for a promotional username, but requested unblocking which what looks like another promotional username. What does everyone think about adding the underlined to the middle of the first paragraph and to the final sentence of the block notice.
please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy.
If you prefer to be unblocked for the purpose of changing your username to a username which complies with our username policy rather than creating a new account, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice instead.
I'm not fussed about the wording or grammar (if I've missed something, etc) so feel free to suggest an alternative. I think that including the links will give a greater chance of the user picking a username which won't get them blocked again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Depends whether the user was a blatant spammer or not and if there is to be an autoblock. Tho options for admins when blocking, and the dozens of templates available make it a headache even when using Twinkle, and many admins often simply use a basic default template. I have blocked hundreds of users and I still find it confusing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this template is only meant to be used without autoblock. the intended purpose seems to get lost in the shuffle a lot. The idea is to make it clear to them that spamming is not tolerated, that their username is also not acceptable, but also that we are giving them a chance to demonstrate that they understand that and they don't have to go through CHU unless they really want the attribution for their previous edits attached to their new username. I'd prefer to see it edited to make that more clear. Daniel Case (the original author of the template) and I had a discussion about this at Wikimania this year. We had both observed that this low-impact approach seems much more effective than hardblocking and using the dreadful Template:Uw-spamublock template, which just confuses people. The point is that in reality most spammers are just newbies like any others. They honestly did not know how seriously we take this sort of thing and once it is explained to them that they can't spam here, they usually stop trying to. Doesn't seemed to have worked in the particular case that started this thread, but generally it does. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox I think the problem is that, whilst they understand that they shouldn't have done the spamming they haven't been given direction on what is and is not okay. The statement that it must comply with the username policy (for both the new account they create and if they choose to request a change of username), hopefully, will prevent the request being denied (and them receiving a big red cross) or their new account being blocked or username warned. Regarding them understanding the attribution, what about this
If you prefer to be unblocked for the purpose of changing your username, so that your contributions with this username are recorded under your new username, rather than creating a new account, you may appeal this username block ...
The {{uw-delete1}} template used to be something I could use when someone blanked large chunks of content, whether a summary was provided or not. The new wording now suggests that blanking should be generically labelled as vandalism in cases where the blanker has provided a summary. I'm sure there's reasons for the new wording, but I really question the value of the change. The new wording may be more "friendly", but it limits the functionally of a template that worked well before the change. We already have a user-warning template that addressed summary issues. -- WikHead (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd missed those discussions myself...and also dislike the new wording. Oh well. I was definitely not on as much as I used to be. Were they at least widely advertised? (I just told someone that I'm Onorem. I'm not. That's just the name on the account.) --Onorem♠Dil06:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we still use the old wording if we want to? (I just warned a user and found the old wording closer to what I wanted to say.) Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the consensus was not about forbidding the use of any particular template someone wants to use. It was about what the versions recommended and maintained by WikiProject User Warnings look like, and thus what the defaults are in Twinkle, Huggle, etc. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very good to know as it will save me from feeling obligated to use templates that I'm uncomfortable with. Is it possible to create a direct shortcut to the previous version, or will it require to be pasted in long-form? -- WikHead (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed the change, sorry I dont like it all a bit to friendly for use against clear vandals. Can we have a note on this page to say if you dont want to be very nice then go straight to Uw-vandalism2. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's always true that it is acceptable to skip levels if the situation warrants it. Myself, i rarely use the lower levels, certainly not for things like vandalism or anything that isn't merely technical, because if I really want to be polite, the only way to do it is a personal note. As I see it, these lower level notices are intended as shortcuts for when a personal note isn't necessary, and for anyone who would feel more comfortable or more likely to say it right using a form, especially beginners. Even at the upper levels, I have always found I get better results with a personal note that makes it clear that a human actually paid attention, not a machine. I use the level 4 warnings as a supplement to leave an unmistakable message & record, or by themselves if it doesn't seem worth the effort for someone obviously not going to learn. The point of these new messages is not that they are truly personal--nothing can make a form notice personal--but that they are considerable less like a unfeeling machine than the older ones. I'd grade the older ones as F for user-friendliness, and the newer ones as a C. Better than C cannot be expected of a machine. (And it was a matter of are we going to debate indefinitely, or are we going to improve at least a little right now. it is inherently impossible to find a form that everybody will like.) DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This new wording has definitely increased the talk page vandalism happening to vandalism fighters. I too will refrain from using lvl 1 in the future and just skip right to lvl 2 whenever I revert proper vandalism (and yes, I was also completely oblivious to any rewording discussions going on). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User warning proposal for restoring defamatory or libelous content to Wikipedia
I want to propose a new user warning for users who restore defamatory or libelous content to Wikipedia. The template name that I want to propose is Uw-defrestore. Hto9950 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are user warning samples:
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but I have removed content because your revision seems to restore defamatory or potentially libelous content to Wikipedia. Please use the sandbox if you want to do some tests. Thank you.
Please refrain from restoring defamatory or potentially libelous content to Wikipedia. Your restoration has been reverted. Please use the sandbox if you want to do some tests. Thank you.
This is your last warning. The next time you restore defamatory content to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is your only warning; if you restore defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Material can be defamatory, true, and well sourced all at the same time. If this is going to be a separate waring from the BLP violation, it needs to emphasize that the problem with the defamatory content being restored is NOT that it is defamatory, but that it is defamatory AND inadequately source. Monty84515:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, is there an kind alternate template to {{uw-attempt}}? I would prefer to use a template that kindly warns first time offenders instead of giving a level 4im. I have created an example template in my sandbox. -- Cheers, Riley Huntleytalk18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Bot for Categories
There is currently a BFRA for a bot to remove users from "indefinitely blocked" categories if they are not actually indefinitely blocked. see here.
Categories affected:
Your comments are appreciated. Avicennasis @ 12:20, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Ideas for Sandbox
Not sure if this was brought up, but I have decided to create a template for people who post defamatory content in the Wikipedia Sandbox:
Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content that is deemed libelous or defamatory to the Sandbox is not consistent with our Sandbox policy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Malfunctioning template
I've recently wanted to use the uw-test1 template, but upon hitting the "Preview" button, I got the following (instead of a username):
Do we have a warning template to use when an editor removes a properly placed "citation needed" tag? I thought there was one, but am not seeing it, Thanks Tvoz/talk18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't use Twinkle, but I may have seen the warning on someone's talkpage. If anyone has a pointer to such a post, I'd like to have it, as it does come up from time to time. Tvoz/talk19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm experiencing this problem as well, with at least {{Uw-delete1}}. Possibly some others as well, but I can't recall which. Will come back if I notice it with others. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There was a concern brought to my attention recently that this template is too harsh in its wording; particularly the bolded text at the end that threatens the editor with a block if copyright violations are persistent. I said I would bring the issue here for opinions. I understand that we want to be strict about copyright issues, and that is a persuasive argument. But I wonder if anyone believes the template could be worded better. On the flip side, perhaps the issue lies more with the editor who uses the template - i.e., that editors should be apt to use it more for egregious violators, and less for established users or those that have made one-time mistakes, when personal messages might be better instead. NTox · talk00:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the sentence should be changed to this message in Uw-uhblock "If you feel that you were blocked in error you may appeal the block", which is the same for other username blocks. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
User notification for attack pages
Given the discussion and RFC about this. Rather than changing the template, how would everyone feel about redirecting it to {{subst:uw-attack}} instead? That way it gets across the seriousness (which the db notice doesn't) and that the user may be blocked, as well as not leaving a link to the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Good thinking. I have two questions, though. First, do we want to include an automatic welcome if the speedy deletion warning is the first edit to the page? At the moment this happens for all speedy deletion notices given by Twinkle. (We use {{first article}}, and for G10s the "thank you for your contributions" line is removed.) And second, do we want the template to automatically generate a section heading? If the answer to either of those is a "yes", then it will be necessary to update the template rather than just redirecting. I'll change the template tonight if people think that would be a good idea - it won't be much trouble. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour(have a chat)01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion would be that if we are warning them about creating an attack page we shouldn't be welcoming as well. But yes I think a section header would be good, but just the stock standard Month Year. Mr. Stradivarius I'd like the practice doing it, but I'll do it in my sandbox first if you wouldn't mind having a look for me? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a couple of tweaks to your sandbox code - now it uses safesubst so that it can both be transcluded and substituted. Also, I got rid of the signature, as I'm pretty sure Twinkle adds that automatically. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour(have a chat)02:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Regarding the html commment, I'd like to leave it in there, as one of it's roles is to identify the template used, which isn't wu-attack. What do you think?
Fair enough. It's probably better to remove the uw-attack comment then, rather than the db-attack-notice comment. That will require just copying the text of uw-attack into the template rather than transcluding it, but that's not such a big deal. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel the level 1 warning text draws too much attention to the person posting the warning instead of the substance of the issue the warning is meant to address - the first link in the text is the poster's username. It makes the warning inapropriately "personal" when the emphasis should be on the transgression. IMHO the Wikipedia Project is driven by process and procedure, don't make it personal. The poster's username should only be in the signature. Roger (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roger. I understand where you're coming from here, but actually the current level 1 user warnings are the result of a lot of research and discussion. Have you seen the RfC where they were implemented? Reading it might provide a better background, if you haven't done so already. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That there was an RfC doesn't dismiss any concerns, especially when the closing administrator specifically pointed out that the consensus was "with the caveat that there were a number of "tweak this more" comments--some of which were tackled, others which may be tackled later on." I don't see anything in the RfC that suggests that this concern was met with any consensus regarding this specific wording. - SudoGhost19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have, but that doesn't mean the tweaks are finished or that any suggestion should be referred to the RfC as if it has consensus to not change anything further. That the first wikilink in the template is a username and not something more relevant is a valid concern, one that can be tweaked. - SudoGhost23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a concern. It's a part of the core value of the new templates. We didn't just propose these on a whim remember, but tested them in a controlled, randomized fashion, and then examined the impact on editing activity of all types. Telling all users, vandals and good faith, that they were reverted by an individual rather than automatically, is extremely important to teaching newbies about collaborative editing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk08:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It has been pointed out previously, but without any satisfactory reply, that if the person doing the revert doesn't give the warning, the new level 1 templates are not suitable for a 3rd party to give the warning. I agree with the many people who have said that this change is not an improvement. The apparently less official Template:Uw-vandalism0 is better than Template:Uw-vandalism1. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be pretty easy to add a new parameter to the level one templates to make them look more like Template:Uw-vandalism0 if they are added by a third party. Getting Twinkle to add the parameter to the template would take a little more effort, but is definitely in the realm of the possible. Does this sound like a workable solution to you? — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Uw-vandalism0}} -- "I wanted to let you know that at least one of your recent edits appears to have been inappropriate and has been reverted." was intentionally written with the case of warning when you didn't revert. I believe it was added to Twinkle as well? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk21:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to step back and stop trying to reject anything that disagrees with your pet project. Your changes have been met with no consensus, especially when the RfC's closing admin specifically stated that further tweaks are needed. This is one such tweak. Don't like it? Explain why and establish a consensus for your preferred changes, don't refer to an RfC that doesn't support what you're saying as if that has some weight. Do not claim that removing the name as the first wikilink somehow turns the template into this "they won't know that they were reverted by an individual rather than automatically" scenario, that is a false dichotomy. Like articles, templates need to be concise and sum up the point of the template in the first sentence and then expand upon it later, since many editors don't read the entirety of them. Therefore "Hi, I'm SudoGhost." is a horrible and pointless beginning to a template. - SudoGhost13:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I know this is anecdotal evidence only, but I use level 0 (which was amended somewhat during the prior discussion), or go straight to a level 2. I think I've templated with a level 1 perhaps three times. The level 0 invites queries or comments either on their talk page or mine.. The level 1 invites questions or responses on my talk page. Absolutely no one has bitten and responded to any of my cautions in any way. I now have so many user talk pages on my watchlist, just in case someone will reply either location, that sometime soon I'm going to have to weed out the earlier ones. Especially since it was stated somewhere profound that warnings are considered to become stale after two weeks anyway. I'm sitting in a small corner of Wikipedia, but anecdotally I can't tell that I've reached out to inspire or prod any of the users to become good editors by any of my communications...even with my personally composed messages. They mostly end up with a sanction or just disappear. I have a two IPs who foursquare ignore me and continue merrily on with their contrary ways. Fylbecatuloustalk13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm in a similar boat; I don't use the level one templates ever since they were changed and from speaking with other editors, I'm far from the only one that just avoids these new templates altogether. When the closing RfC comment says that "tweaks are needed" is the consensus, it doesn't make sense to object to everything single change while referring to the RfC as reason to reject any change. - SudoGhost14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The idea you're positing that revisions weren't made to tweak is untrue. As for the proposal about removing the statement of who reverted an editor and linking to the username: it's hardly a tweak. It's an essential difference in tone (active, first person vs. passive voice). As for the use of level 0 or 2 warnings as an alternative... I heard much the same from a handful of other patrollers. But when we looked at the project-wide data, it seems with use of level one warnings vs. level two, the proportions stayed much the same. (You can also see an overall increase in the use of TW and decrease in HG). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk22:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a wonderfully pointless response, and fails to address a single thing that was said. Unless you have consensus that the current versions are faultless and need no further tweaking, the consensus of the RfC stands, that the templates are not "finished" and will be adjusted as necessary. I never "posited" any such idea, that's wonderful red herring, but again pointless. This "difference in tone" is another false dichotomy, and is getting tiresome. Unless you have something useful to contribute, your repeated attempts to ignore the RfC and assume ownership of all of the level one templates will be ignored and consensus will determine how the templates are changed without your input. - SudoGhost23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Everytime someone tries to discuss the content, you attempt to shoot it down citing an RfC that does not reflect what you're saying. Please stop this. - SudoGhost00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Steven, I too am mystified by your response above. The proportions of what stayed the same? Not that it matters, really. What I am interested in discerning is: now that we as patrollers are in real time using these revised templates, do you have any evidence that the "difference in tone" is teaching newbies or contraries to become good editors and thusly retain them? Not during the study, but now? Because as I posted above, I haven't even had one editor reach out and touch me with any kind of response. I have them all watched, and I don't see them growing into blooming flowers who wish to make amends and edit well. They are all fading away, or getting further sanctions. I think the new template messages are weaker in tone to the point that when I use anything below a 2, all my cautionees yawn at me and say "that's nice". Fylbecatuloustalk00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)\
The proportions of level one templates used compared to level two warnings. The point was that patrollers overall are not abandoning the level one templates. They work, even if that personally has not been your experience. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Moving forward
That the first link in the template is an editor's username is a valid concern, since it takes away from the conciseness of the templates and shifts the focus on who is speaking rather than what is being said. That the templates previously felt too "automated" is also a valid concern, but the way they are currently written is overkill. However, how do we fix that while keeping with the discussion in the RfC? - SudoGhost23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been addressed at length already on this talk page and in the RfC itself. The use of first person, active voice, and the link to the username was tested rigorously for months. One of the core conclusions of the testing was that using a passive voice, where the reverting and warning editor is identified in the third person, is not advantageous for warning away vandals or correcting good faith contributors who made a mistake. Attempting to controvert that conclusion, arrived at both through community consensus and the test data, is not fruitful. {{uw-vandalism0}} was created to deal with the legitimate edge case of warning an editor you did not revert, where the current level 1 is not useful. Otherwise, you haven't presented a very specific, coherent reason why using the first person is bad. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
To suggest that removing the order of wikilinks would change "the active voice" is absurd, please read what is being written before responding, because what you're aruging against is not being suggested. Yes, this has been addressed at length. The consensus? That further tweaks were needed. There was no consensus that the very first thing in the template should be a link to the editor leaving the comment, and nobody is suggesting that a third person tone be used, you're arguing against something that nobody is suggesting. Please stop attempting to ignore and circumvent the RfC consensus, or your comments here will be ignored, because they aren't helping anyone, and your red herring arguments aren't helping yourself either. - SudoGhost00:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there was consensus to support the current version of the templates, including the userpage link. I find it almost funny that you would say I would studiously trying to circumvent an RfC that I started. While you're arguing about to remove something without a rationale, we're talking above about how to make sure uw-vandalism0 is available in Twinkle. It's a good compromise. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
We also all know that everyone that starts an RfC is always happy with the outcome, right? Find me this consensus that the userpage link belongs at the beginning of the template, because I've looked, it isn't there. Every time a "tweak" is suggested, you try to shoot it down citing the RfC, but ironically the RfC does not say that the templates are without issue, in fact the RfC's consensus is that these templates still need to be worked on, so your protestations are hollow at best, and you're arguing against things that aren't being suggested. You've already established that you do not read things before responding, so I am not surprised you do not see any rationale. uw-vandalism0 is about the use of third-person in templates, not the way this template is worded. How you think that is relevant is beyond me, but it looks like you're discussing something completely different than everyone else. - SudoGhost00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is all about but I'm beginning to get slightly irritated by constantly having to manually remove the first person from the L1 vandalism warning when warning a user whose edit(s) I did not remove. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW: I also find that the friendliness when addressing vandalism is OTT. Delinquency is never done in good faith. There are no objective extrapolations to be made from this kind of AB template testing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Even the afore mentioned level 0 vandalism template (which is good to use for warning editors you did not revert) begins: Hello, I'm Fylbecatulous. Which I decided to live with since I prefer to use that template although I'm always the one who reverted the article I'm cautioning about. Fylbecatuloustalk01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ambiguous phrasing uw-unsourced2
When we include an article title as the 1st argument in Template:uw-unsourced2, the first sentence reads:
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources as you did at Article.
While the meaning is clear that the user failed to verify an edit somewhere, it's not clear whether the user verified or failed to verify the edit at Article. I think it would be less ambiguous to write the warning as follows:
Please do not add or change content as you did at Article without verifying it by citing reliable sources.
Currently the wording states "if you think I've made a mistake ... take a look at our guidelines about links." Question: why would they take a look at the guidelines if the user thinks a mistake has been made on another editor's part? For clarity's sake, I would recommend that a reference to the external links guidelines be placed before the "mistakes" wording. Something like:
Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please take a look at our guidelines about links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Logically, it makes sense to say what the person should do if they contest the revert first. If they don't have something to say to you, the next logical step is why did you revert me? That's where WP:EL comes in. Anyway, I think your suggestion would work fine, though I would like it if it said something like, "Please take a look at our guidelines about links, for reference". One alternative might be, "...because it seemed inappropriate according to our policy on external links." Steven Walling (WMF) • talk08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed it seems weird. Could it have simply been a typo when the redirect was originally created? (Note that the redirect target includes the string "s/".) And now it's enshrined in documentation and 109 transclusions? – Wdchk (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Level 1 templates: parameter 2
Resolved
During the rework of the level 1 templates earlier this year, it seems that parameter 2 was removed from some of them. For example, {{Uw-delete1}} no longer has it, but {{Uw-vandalism1}} still does. The effect of this parameter was to replace "Thank you." with some other text, and it's mentioned in the documentation. Presumably the level 1 templates are intended to be consistent with each other (and with the documentation), so should that parameter be in or out? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to auto based on the statement already in this template's documentation. However a question for everyone, is there a reason for this template to be substed? I don't believe many (if any) of the other header templates are substituted. Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Uw-attack warning is too narrowly worded
The Uw-attack template reads "Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject…" In many cases an attack article doesn't disparage (etc) its subject, it uses an article (often a very poor one) to disparage something else, for instance I've just deleted as WP:CSD#G10 an article entitled "Biceps tendon rupture" which "explained" how ruptured biceps tendons were common amongst amenians (sic) due to their "weirdness". This obviously wasn't an attack on ruptured biceps tendons; it was an attack article nonetheless. The warning template should be re-worded to make it plain that attack articles of any kind are not allowed, even if they happen not to be a direct attack on the subject of the article. TonywaltonTalk23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A somewhat belated response: How about replace "their subject" with "things" which would be a catch-all phrase. The only difficulty is that the policy mentions "their subject" specifically. So, there is some potential for policy wonkery with such a change to this template. We could change the wording for the policy as well, but with recent instability on the talk page, concerning the page's very status as a policy, I sense much Wikidrama ahead... Pol430talk to me18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't see a reason to change it, it seems to be a cosmetic change which doesn't achieve a lot, sorry if that sounded a bit abrupt or rude I didn't intend it that way. Plus I could make an argument that "amenians" were one of the subjects of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirecting older block templates to newer ones
What is the feeling for redirecting older block templates to their newer versions? These are the ones I've found so far:
I've seen lots of test edits by anonymous, IP Address, users who have not yet received a welcome message. Also, I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a wikipedia welcome template that is specifically designed to warn anonymous users that testing isn't appropriate (I've searched extensively -- more than just that page). I worked up a template to fill this gap but I don't know if it's ready for primetime. I'm looking for an experienced template editor to help polish and guide this useful tool through the final stages. Please post something on my talk page if you're interested in helping. Thanks! - ʈucoxn\talk11:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
As I recall it was based on another welcome message that must not have had those features. I have no problem with you improving it. I added the basepagename parameter, edited it a bit for possible shared usage and added the shared IP advice from welcome-anon-vandal. Jojalozzo04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jojalozzo. Adding the basepagename parameter was one of the things I wanted to see. I made a couple small edits. Let me know what you think before I suggest any additional changes. - ʈucoxn\talk09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Jojalozzo, I'm still looking into tweaks that can be made to {{welcome-anon-test}} but I noticed something else on the template that doesn't seem to work and I don't know how to fix it. The "Username" parameter doesn't seem to function. Could you verify that it's broken and and fix it? Thanks! - ʈucoxn\talk00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you add your user name as the second parameter it makes the text "my talk page" into a link to your talk page. That is working. Maybe we just need to clarify the docs to say that. I just copied the welcome-anon-vandal docs so I will update them both. Jojalozzo03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I wikified the link to the {{helpme}} template. I'm also working on distributing wiki-links to Template:welcome-anon-test to the other locations where welcome and vandalism/test templates are located.
One thing I don't know how to do: the words "here on your talk page" should have the same link for the user to edit his talk page. I think this is another opportunity for some of wikipedia's magic words. Thanks! - ʈucoxn\talk19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Such a link would only be useful when the template is used somewhere other than on a user's talk page. I do not think such a use case exists. Jojalozzo19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That template is used for editors that create foreign language pages, but appear to have enough comprehension of English to translate, or obtain a translation, of the page. Foreign language pages have not necessarily come from an other-language Wiki. If you are looking for a template that steers editors, who do not understand English well enough to contribute here, to their native language version, there are a series of suitable welcome templates here. Pol430talk to me15:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Username warning, suggested improvement
I should like to have an additional parameter in {{Uw-username}}, say |goodedit=, which, if set to anything other than "no", applies the text, with italicisation:
Please note that this is a procedural matter, and not a reflection on your edits, which are most welcome
My reason for requesting this, rather than simply entering the text manually using the existing additional text field, is that I would also like to have the use of that parameter prompted by a checkbox in Twinkle. Its use should aid in editor retention. I'm not precious about the precise parameter name or exact wording, so long as the message is not diluted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.
Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position...
Proposed:
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position...
Rationale:
Obviously, WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION exist to tackle genuine (and somewhat endemic) problems. I support vandal fighting (and sometimes contribute in small ways myself) but think that we must also acknowledge more visibly the prospect of editor reform: people do lose allegiance to their employers, begin to see the bigger picture, etc. etc.
Isn't a more concerted attempt at rehabilitation preferable to imposed banning, which must in a number of cases result in spam editors seeking to continue under the radar?
Another user an I posted to a user page User_talk:Moraspirit within a few minutes of each other. When I posted a few minutes later it somehow changed the content of their post to include my username: dif
It has since been solved by the other user copying the wikicode of the template manually but I thought it maybe worth a mention in case a bug exists somewhere. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)15:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The page history suggests that it was right first time. One thing worth noting, however, is that the other editor had originally forgotten to subst the template. He corrected that after your edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The warning template uses the magic word{{REVISIONUSER}}, which displays the name of the last user to edit the page. Usually the template is substituted, and therefore doesn't change when another user edits the page. Because the template was transcluded, though, the name changes every time a different user edits the page. The error was fixed as it was Myxomatosis57 who later substituted the template, but if it had been someone else who substituted it, it would have used their username instead. So, it's not a bug in the template, but a result of transcluding it rather than substituting it. Hope this clears things up! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour♪ talk ♪23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the changes to WP:COI, which is now worded much more like "use the Talk page" instead of "try to be neutral" should we change the template to reflect that? I myself have been using my own custom template[4] and have felt pretty good about the results of using it. And when I edit as a volunteer and I interact with PR people in this way, we both seem pretty happy about the interaction, compared to the frustrating experiences I've had with direct-edits. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and frequent COI contributor)
This template has an extra space before the 'giver's' name, so the signature then appears in a broken form unless the giver then goes in and manually deletes the extra space. See this and this. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Addshore has created a few templates to be used to educate people about Wikidata now being live. They can be found at Template:uw-wikidata-del, Template:uw-wikidata-add, and Template:uw-wikidata-revert. They are for when people either: remove interwikis without them being present on Wikidata; add interwikis to Wikipedia when they should be adding them to Wikidata; and when someone reverts attempts to remove interwikis that are present on Wikidata. Could they be added to this page in order for them to receive greater use and thus help increase Wikidata awareness? Cheers Del♉sion23(talk)15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I made all three 50px high, instead of 100px wide (uw-wikidata-del) or 150px wide (others). This is still twice as tall as the logo of {{subst:uw-date}}, one of the mildest of "crimes". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Civility warning
I feel the need to ask a question that's probably been asked a million times before. Is there a warning template reminding editors to be civil, and if not, why not? I'm troubled by an editor who is leaving increasingly uncivil, aggressive edit summaries (along with a good few comparable talk page posts.) I've looked for a suitable warning template and other than possibly the ones for AGF or disruption, nothing seems to quite work. What's an editor have to do to suggest/request such a template? --Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. None is exactly the right fit -- he's being damned rude, and a bit free with the caps and exclaimers, more than anything -- but one should do the job with a bit of additional verbiage. Any theories why there's no "mind yer manners and be polite" template? --Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
My initial thought on why is that some people find it rude to be templated...so being templated for being rude might seem a bit off. Just type up a friendly message for them that expresses your concerns. --Onorem♠Dil00:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's that bad, then maybe someone else should do it? Now that WP:WQA has been stupidly disbanded, would you like me to take a shot? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm trying to head him off at the pass, before it gets too bad. I had a good think, tinkered a bit, then used harass2 (the wording fit better than harass1) with an additional message including some exemplars. Let's see how that flies, and if it doesn't work, I'll take you up on your offer. In the meantime, I'm going to drop a message on your talk page; I'd value your perspective on one item in particular. --Drmargi (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Why subst this template?
Can anyone help me understand why the uw-sanctions template needs to be subst'ed? Doing a subst on this particular template adds over 10K bytes to a user talk page — see here for an example — and although I realize disk space is cheap and we don't need to panic over this extra material, it still seems wasteful. It would be nice if there were a way to have subst insert only the text that actually gets generated by this template, rather than inserting the entire body of the template with all its conditional logic. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)03:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I would imagine that it's supposed to be substed for the same reason that all the other uw- templates should be substed - in order that the message text on the target page is "fixed". This way it will not be subject to subsequent amendment which might change its meaning from what was intended at the time that the message was served. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Slideshow?
Somebody added a "slideshow" to {{uw-coi}}, which was actually a link to a PDF document. It's caption read "What embarrassing fact do the CIA, Microsoft, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and MySpace share in common? Click through to this fascinating slideshow and find out." I've removed it. It did not seem at all appropriate and I see no discussion of it anywhere. Yworo (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo.
That was me. Indeed, I was bold and added the link to the slideshow without discussion.
I wrote the caption you quoted. The caption uses a hook — in this case, an intriguing question. It's a rhetorical device to make you want to click through to the slideshow, which answers the question in slides 41-44. (Still don't understand? Let me clarify. The entities listed in slide 42 made the news for the embarrassing gaffe named in the last two words of slide 41.)
I know you feel that linking to the slideshow is inappropriate. But dear Yworo and dear all: Have you actually viewed the slideshow? What did you think of it? Personally, I've been an editor for years, and I work in computers, not PR. Yet I learned quite a few interesting new things from the slideshow. I found parts of it fascinating.
It didn't even display as a slideshow, it loaded as a long PDF file. It was tl;dr. It was clearly inappropriate for adding to a canned message. Maybe it's appropriate for adding to one of the linked pages. BOLD is for article space, not for policy pages or templates intended for warning users. In these spaces, an editor is expected to propose policy ideas, wording changes and additions like that and get feedback and consensus.
These warnings are placed using subst, it is not really possible to recall or change warnings placed with inappropriate and non-consensual content or changes. So get consensus from the community that your changes are appropriate before making them. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. In a properly configured copy of Adobe Reader, the slideshow should display as a discontinuous PDF zoomed to the "show entire page" zoom level: in other words, it should show up in a manner which somewhat resembles a slideshow. Each time you press the Page Down key on your keyboard, you should see the next slide. Anyway, you complain that the link is inappropriate, but you still haven't viewed the slideshow. Because you're complaining about a link to something you haven't viewed, I shall ignore your complaint. If you view the slideshow and then still have a complaint, then I will consider it. Dear all: Who has actually viewed the slideshow? What did you think of it? Do you think it's sensible to link to it from {{uw-coi}}? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Some people use Macs, and don't use Adobe Reader. Don't make decisions that assume people use the same software you do. Or even want to. Duh. Yworo (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. One suggestion: If you strive to be extra-polite and to avoid the usage of words like "duh", you may find that people respect your words more. Anyway, as for the rest of your words: Fair points. (I personally use one PC running Windows and one running Debian Linux.) Although Adobe Reader is probably by far the most commonly used desktop PDF viewer, my comment failed to acknowledge those who use competitors to Adobe Reader. And indeed, the slideshow is a bit annoying to view in Evince unless I click "View > Presentation" to tell Evince that the PDF file contains a slideshow. Anyway, back to the matter of the slideshow itself: You hate it but still have never viewed it. I have started a thread below for people who have viewed it to say what they think about it. We will see what people there say. I ask, please, that you respectfully not reply there unless you have viewed the slideshow. If I cited you wrongly there, feel free to edit and correct my words. Meanwhile, feel free to reply to me in this thread; I plan to continue to follow it. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
When I warn a vandal etc I do not like using the First level templates because they give far too much prominence to me as the poster of the warning. It does not matter who delivers the warning/reverts the vandalism. I am not at all interested in engaging in discussions with vandals on my talk page. If the editor has good faith concerns about the article they vandalised that is what the article's talk page is there for. The emphasis should be on process/procedure/policy and not on the person performing the action. Making the issue personal instead of procedural is an invitation for engaging in personal conflicts. Roger (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to engage in a good faith discussion on the article talk page where such discussion properly belongs - not on my talk page.
I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The brutal reality (outside the lala-land of AGF at all costs) is that in the vast majority of vandalism cases all we really need is for the vandal to fuck off and die go away, because the vandalism is most often not a good faith editing "error". I object to my username being so prominently displayed as the first wikilink in the template message because the issue is not about me, it's about the article and the actions of the recipient of the warning. Wikipedia is not Social Media, personalities are completely irrelevant - building the encyclopedia is about process, "please leave your personality at the door". Roger (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've got no problem with my name being first link here. I deliberately started at level 1 and the guy didn't get it. Whether the uw-messages work or not is another matter... --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've always thought that it was better for a disruptive editor to be disruptive at my talk page then for them to continue to disrupt articles. If including the personal part of the message results in that, I think its an added bonus. Further, if an editor really is acting in good faith, and talking can sort out the issue, we should be willing to talk at pretty much any place on-wiki to do it. Monty84515:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Roger, just for reference in case you we arrived at the current wording after about six months of controlled testing through WikiProject User Warnings, and an 30-day RFC to discuss the templates that performed best in testing. I understand that vandalfighters don't all feel comfortable being "in the spotlight" so to speak, but here's a few points we learned through the whole testing and rewrite project...
Many new and anonymous editors have a hard time understanding that they were reverted by a person, another editor like them, not a software system like a bot. Our signatures aren't enough, and that's why the language was generally changed from totally impersonal, passive voice to a first person voice and an invitation to talk.
Using an active, first person voice actually drives away vandals better. They see that real people are watching every edit flowing through RecentChanges, and that they're not going to get away with it. (We hand categorized literally 12,000+ reverted edits as part of this process, and measured differences in behavior between obvious vandals, test edits, and people who were simply misguided about something like WP:V and NPOV.)
This part is just my opinion, but I think most common level one warnings don't really merit discussion on the article talk page. People getting uw-vandalism1 or uw-delete1 (two of the most common issues) don't need to start a consensus-building process. They just need to read the message, and stop what they were doing. The user talk link is there if they want to ask a real person who knows something about the issue, and my experience as an admin has been that not many people really care enough to come bug me about anything. They either keep vandalizing and get blocked, or leave.
Anyway, happy to discuss more of course. But I wanted to give a little context, and in particular point out that we made this change carefully and slowly with real data behind it, not just because some folks felt like it was a good idea. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk20:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Aye, there was testing and discussion, but while I appreciate that this is something you're very close to, the fact of the matter remains that there were concerns about the overly personal nature of the messages then and there are concerns about it now. And it goes both ways - beyond making vandal fighters uncomfortable, such a tone can also devalue the message as effectively as an overly formal one: I had one tester remark about how precisely because it was so friendly it clearly was just an automated message. -— Isarra༆00:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You can't make everyone happy. We have to make a decision, so we might as well make one based on objective data rather than pure gut instinct. People aren't forced to use the default warnings, after all. As for the user testing: that doesn't hint at the need for a change to the warning text. It hints at the need for us to do away with generalized, semi-automated warnings and either replace them with real system messages (like notifications) or make it much easier for people to leave each other real human messages (like Flow). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk05:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info Steven. It's a pity RFC was not on my watchlist at that time. I think there is sufficient justification to adjust some of the level 1 warnings to be less "cute" as some of the issues these warnings address can't ever be good faith errors. We need not treat obviously intentional vandals as if they just need a little friendly guidance (and a cookie), sometimes "Waste the mutha....ers!" really is justified even at the first offence. Roger (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, objectivity makes a difference - the user testing doesn't hint at anything beyond that such warnings being so 'personal' can lead people to discount them same as if they're too formal. Perhaps having an system message would change that, but perhaps it wouldn't, as there could still be arguments for making the tone of such a system message more personal or more formal. And Flow won't change people, either - speaking as someone who reverts vandalism and regularly templates folks for at least some others as well, hardest part of writing our own personal messages has generally been the actual writing a personal message part, regardless of the interface, especially when so often we know the folks won't read them anyway.
I know, this doesn't really help anything, but that's just how it seems to be. We can only take things at face value and proceed accordingly at the time, but it doesn't mean things may not turn up later to warrant a reevaluation. Or enough people. -— Isarra༆09:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Discussion thread for those who have viewed Ocaasi's slideshow
Hi all. I propose that {{uw-coi}} should include a link to User:Ocaasi's interesting slideshow "Learning to Speak in Wikipedia's Language--Public Relations and The Free Encyclopedia". Yworo, in the thread above, thinks that the template should not include the link. I think Yworo thinks such a link would be inappropriate. Yworo also doesn't like the fact that the slideshow displays badly in PDF readers other than Adobe Reader. Yworo has so far not commented on the slideshow's content: s/he feels it is too long, and so has not viewed the slideshow. This thread is addressed to all those who have viewed the slideshow. Do you think the template should include the link? Why or why not? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't display as a slide show for me, and the software I'm using is from Adobe. Even if it did display as a slide show (starting at page 41), it still wouldn't be appropriate, except when applied to direct, paid, COI, rather than the usual "I think you're too close to this subject" or referring to editing articles about the editor him/herself. If there were to be a template {{uw-paid}}, and the slide show were to display correctly, and were hosted on a Wikimedia site, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair points. Mr. Rubin, you've convinced me that my original idea — to include a prominent link to the slideshow in the template — was a bad idea. Thank you. Resolved. All the best, Unforgettableid (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Wording tweak
I'd like to make some changes to the wording of this template{{Uw-tilde}} to get people to comply with it more easily, but since it's so widely used, I'm proposing the
changes here first. Let me know if there are any objections to the following:
Hello. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment*. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. *Alternatively, with the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, you can click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
Hi AlanM1. I'm fine with your proposed wording; I think it's an improvement. IMO the following wording would be even better, because it avoids distracting the reader with the jumping-around necessary to read footnotes:
Hello. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment.
Or, with the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, you can click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This redirect needs categories added. Please modify it as follows:
from this...
#REDIRECT [[Template:Uw-test1]] {{r from warning template}}
to this...
#REDIRECT [[Template:Uw-test1]] *WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE ERASE THE TEXT ON THIS LINE & LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK. {{Redr|from warning template|from template shortcut|protected}}
The table on the page mentions "Removal of maintenance templates" and "Disrupting the taxonomy templates." It would be more clear to me, if all of the templates that fall into those categories were actually categorized as such (there are s few others that are more obvious like "Removing file deletion tags"). Then, those titles in the table could be linked to the appropriate categories so that new editors looking to be helpful in this regard knows which warning to use in which circumstances so that they don't end up with a "Improper use of warning or blocking template" on their talk page. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The advice in the COI user-warning template
Hi all. Currently, the {{uw-coi}} template includes four points of advice:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
No response here. Fine. I have edited the template now. It now includes all seven points. Plus I have made some other major changes to the template. If you have any issues with my changes, please do speak up here. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the template. Templates are assumed to be stable. If you cannot get editors onboard for your proposed changes, leave it alone. Lack of response is not a go ahead. You must get a positive response from multiple editors to change a project-created template. Yworo (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you like my changes? Also, you say that multiple editors must recommend any change; is this policy, or just your opinion? If it is policy, where may I find the policy? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You must show consensus. Lack of disagreement != consensus. These templates were created by WikiProject user warnings, a WikiProject that I don't think you are even a member of. If you can't show consensus, you have no business changing them. What's it to you, anyway? Busy pimping a specific document or page? That's what I thought. Yworo (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Yworo: Your reply was impolite and failed to assume good faith. Fine. But it also did not link to any policy. Am I correct in assuming that your point about multiple editors is not policy, but is instead just your opinion? If not, then which policy page backs up your words? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's true that "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Mr. Ellsworth, thank you for pointing me there. But: "A statement of like or dislike is not useful without reasons for that like or dislike". People's statements that there's "no consensus" aren't useful. Only comments on why my edits were good or bad can be useful. Do you agree or disagree with my edits to the template, and if you disagree, why? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to say that I'm neutral about your changes; however, the second one isn't true. Just about anybody can edit just about any page on Wikipedia, and your second point may be seen as censorious. They can make minor edits like grammar and spelling, but they just shouldn't make major edits to such an article unless backed by good, solid and acceptable reliable sources. And don't ignore the consensus issue, because other contributors have sometimes worked very long and hard to research the past edits and come to a consensus about them. Anytime you propose major textual changes to policies, guidelines, templates, Help pages and such, there are two ways to approach it.
Begin a discussion on the talk page and talk up your ideas.
Be bold and make the changes, which, if disliked by other editors, should then be discussed on the talk page.
But most of all, try to have fun with it, because neither you nor your hecklers have to be here. And you never know when your edits might actually be positively transforming. – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX!21:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been asked for clarification about this sentence: "I want to say that I'm neutral about your changes; however, the second one isn't true."
Do not edit articles about yourself, your business, or your competitors.
I was wondering if there was an equivalent to the uw-tdel series of templates for users who improperly or make excessive use of article maintenance templates. I don't just mean drive-by tagging, but also people who seem to be using templates as badges of shame, and individuals who tag a page for something where the tag patently does not apply (e.g., {{Dead end}} on a page that is well linked). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Problematic opening language in certain first level warnings
Most of the first level warning templates start "Welcome to Wikipedia", which is fine. However, a subset start "Hello, I'm LinkedUsername". I would never use any of these templates because this opening reads to me as very stilted and makes no sense when you're going to be signing at the end of the same message. I propose all of them use "Welcome to Wikipedia". They are:
Make the wording optional and not default? Require those who like the present wording to specify hello=yes, for example? Peter Brown (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't, but I have now. I've also read Isarra's contributions to that discussion; she has a somewhat different perspective, more in accord with Fuhghettaboutit's view. It would seem that the current presentations should be the default, but couldn't they be made optional to give editors like Fuhghettaboutit an alternative they would be more comfortable with? Peter Brown (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The actual consensus of the RfC was that the level one templates still need to be tweaked further; this appears to be the number one complaint about these templates so it is certainly something that needs to be addressed. - SudoGhost20:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
And we did continue to tweak. But making the templates actually acknowledge up front that they come from another human being is one of the key differences A/B tested for months prior to the RFC. As I've said in previous followup discussions: this isn't actually a side issue, but a key part of the enhancements which lead to statistically significant increases in the ability of the warnings to be effective. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no consensus for that, and every time it's brought up you attempt to shoot it down citing a consensus which does not exist. The fact that this is the one aspect which is constantly brought up as something that needs to be addressed means that, in one form or another, it needs to be addressed. - SudoGhost06:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agreed. It has been pointed out that it is stupid to say "Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more ..." when giving a warning to someone for an edit that someone else has already reverted. The revised templates have been given a trial, have been shown to be in need of improvement, and it is worrying that the WMF seem to be at odds with the community on the need for further change. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that we went through six months of controlled, randomized testing to gather data, followed by a month long Request for Comment with further edits to the templates, does make me less than happy about the idea that a relatively small number of people would come along after the fact to object to the core changes made. I didn't write this style of template based on my personal preferences or on casual observations. We did so through a pretty involved collaborative process, and I find it ridiculous that you might not consider the fact that we arrived conclusions which come from a deeper understanding than personal preference about the message style. What's more: these templates are not required to be used by anyone. They are merely the defaults. You are free to make and use whatever custom template you like, as most people do with templates like Welcome. You don't have to do or say anything you're not comfortable with, but I do find it irksome that you would seek to change the consensus version radically without adhering to the same rigor and standards for open input that we did. In short: these templates are not from or by "the WMF". They're by me and and the other 50-plus people who participated in WP:UWTEST and the following RFC. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is no consensus that this wording does not need to be changed, the RfC's closing comments specifically says that "further tweaks are needed", that's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. More importantly even if there were such a consensus, consensus is not set in stone, and these templates are not yours; you are free to create your own templates, but if consensus determines that the wording of these specific templates need to be changed, the wording will be changed, per the consensus shown at the closing comments of the RfC. - SudoGhost23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying they can't change. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying what I've said before, which is that this part of all of them is actually not a minor thing, it's really important based on what the test data tells us, so if you want to change it I don't think you should do so based on a handful of people objecting after we held a much wider consensus discussion. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
...and what I'm saying is that the "much wider consensus discussion" specifically said that it needed to be tweaked further; there's no consensus to keep the current wording, so that's not a reason not to change it. - SudoGhost23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When the consensus of the RfC is that "further tweaks are needed", that's about as far from "twisting the consensus" as one can get. I would appreciate it if you focused on the actual content, instead of accusing others of "twisting the consensus", which is a rather pointless response without explaining how it would be "twisted". - SudoGhost04:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The focus of that discussion was not about my concern here—that the language is stilted and utterly redundant with signing. The focus was about whether it should be so personal and whether it should invite the warnee to your talk page to discuss and so on. To give an example of language I would be okay with, that's even more personal, I would be fine if it said "Hi Name. I am another Wikipedia editor like you. I saw your edit to ____..." or something to that effect. I just cannot use a template that imparts a message in words I could never allow to bear my username because of its poor construction as a piece of writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What seems redundant to you and I, as experienced editors, can be pretty important to first time readers who don't know who is sending them a message, what our funky custom signatures are, etc. We tested versions of very similar templates without the introduction currently in the level one warnings, and they weren't nearly as effective (full results discussion, as noted in the original RFC). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem with your conclusion is that you did not test an infinite series of templates but just a few different versions so now you are relying on the gross results but cannot actually tell me whether an alternative version, different from any that were tested but very much traveling down the same road of personalization and geared to signaling to the recipient that there's a real person writing the message would be possibly better than all of them (or worse), with language I would not find objectionable. I can't reverse the arrow of time to include any proposed alternative in the test, so I'll let it lie, but I will never use any of these warnings. So I will tailor (as I often do anyway). I am not concentrated on vandal fighting so it's no great burden on me but I do think others will also balk at the language and may avoid using them because of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Question: - Various reasons have been given as to why the current wording of the first sentence of these templates do not work, so what wording do you think would fix these issues while still fixing the percieved "personal" issue? - SudoGhost23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
One compromise we came to after the fact was to create {{Uw-vandalism0}}, which wasn't a part of the original discussion and which I think people should just edit boldly if they want. (It's currently up for deletion, but looks like it will be kept.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk23:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If level 0 templates were able to be actually added to the Template:Templatesnotice and Twinkle that would be a better alternative, but right now any level 0 templates aren't doing much good. The discussions on this talk page certainly seem to indicate that at least. - SudoGhost23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think so. Templates are just a way to add lots of text at once in one place. I could type out all the text of templates, however, it would take too long. Templates automatically "type" it out for me. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)17:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm User:Example. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Article, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Article. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
These templates misrepresent Wikipedia policy and should be revised or deleted. The text associated with {{Uw-unsourced3}}, for example, says:
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
So policy requires citations for:
Quotations,
Claims that have been challenged, and
Claims likely to be challenged.
There is no requirement that an editor provide a source for material meeting none of these three conditions. What the templates do provide is a mechanism for making false statements about Wikipedia policy in order to bully those unsure about accepted practice.
As regards item 1, it would be appropriate for a template to scold an editor for adding an unsourced quotation, since this is definitely contrary to policy. So far as I know, there is no such template. The existing templates, which misrepresent policy, should not be used.
Item 2 faults an editor, not for adding unsourced content, but for failing to respond to a challenge. The templates, which scold editors for adding content, are wholly inappropriate to this case.
Item 3 is vague. It is reasonable to demand compliance from experienced editors, who have some idea what claims are likely to be challenged. If a template is devised for this situation, however, the documentation should make clear that it should never be posted on the talk page of a newbie editor. For newbies, the appropriate template is {{citation needed}}.
As they stand, all four templates should be revised or deleted. Perhaps some more appropriate templates can be proposed.
Your comments make sense; thank you for them. Dear all: Do Wikipedians actually use the uw-unsourced templates? In what situations do they actually use them? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The level 3 template does seem a bit inaccurate, but the level 1 template doesn't have that same inaccuracy. The level 2 template could be reworded slightly, but it's not inaccurate only because it's not saying "you can't" but rather "please don't". I think changing the level 2 template to say "Please do not add or change content likely to be challenged without..." would solve that issue, though I'm sure there's a better way of wording it. - SudoGhost06:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the application of the template imply that the material's verifiability is being challenged, and therefor confirm itself as at very least qualification #2? Technical 13 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The addition of unsourced material is common and usually acceptable. I'm sure that we all do it. Here, for example Redrose64 has noted that the Winteringham railway station is closed: this is a typical unsourced minor change, admissible because it is not a quotation and because no challenge is likely. All four templates at least suggest that there is something wrong with this kind of edit.
@SudoGhost: {{Uw-unsourced3}} is a bit inaccurate? I'd say that it's a thorough misrepresentation. In addition, its use of the deletion icon is inappropriate. Your suggested change to {{Uw-unsourced2}}, though, would do the job, and a similar rewording would do for {{Uw-unsourced3}}: "Please stop adding unsourced content likely to be challenged. . . ." As regards {{Uw-unsourced1}}, the text admittedly does not contain an explicit misrepresentation of policy, but it misleadingly suggests that any unsourced material, including minor ones relating to the Winteringham railway station, are officially discouraged.
@Redrose64: If you explain what you use the templates for, it would help this discussion formulate more appropriate wording.
@Technical 13: I suppose that {{Uw-unsourced1}} could be construed as a challenge, though {{citation needed}} is more to the point. {{Uw-unsourced3}} and the first sentence in the {{Uw-unsourced2}} text are clearly oriented toward stopping an editor from doing something that all of us do. Since no parameter in {{Uw-unsourced4}} is provided for identifying challenged material, it cannot be used as a challenge.
That's why it's only a bit inaccurate; it's not critically inaccurate if a simple addendum would make it accurate, and to suggest that the use of the icon is inappropriate for a level 3 warning suggests that you are unfamiliar with what they are meant to do. If it's a situation where that icon would be inappropriate, then the level 3 warning itself would be inappropriate. The level 1 warning also does not suggest what you're saying it does; it says the edit was reverted because it was unsourced, not because all edits should be sourced. - SudoGhost19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Simple addenda can radically change meaning! Anyhow, we agree that changes are necessary. Do you agree with the proposed wording for level 3, based on your suggestion for level 2? As regards the icon, Template:Ambox/doc#type says that it's to be used in connection with articles proposed for deletion, which is not relevant here. You're right, the level 1 warning says the edit was reverted because it was unsourced, but that's not sufficient justification for reversion; if it were, then reversion of all unsourced material would be called for. An additional reason is necessary, and {{Uw-unsourced1}} does not supply a parameter that can be used to supply that reason.
The reversion of all unsourced material is well within Wikipedia policy, so yes it's perfectly sufficient justification for reversion. As for the icon, all level 3 templates that I'm aware of use that icon, because that denotes the nature of the message. The documentation you're referring to concerns usage on articles, not user space talk pages. - SudoGhost20:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have to grant your point about reversion policy. Nevertheless, there is no policy discouraging all additions of unsourced material! All who understand and use these templates, as they stand, evince their own view that all added material should be sourced. It seems that Redrose64 had not thought the matter through when he (or she) used the templates and also added unsourced material about Winteringham station. I do hope that Redrose64 responds to my request above in order to help with the job of rewording the templates in a way that does not discourage all unsourced additions. Peter Brown (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall why I sent all of those templates - but if you want me to explain certain specific instances, I will endeavour to do so. In the case of Whitton railway station (Lincolnshire): yes, it was unsourced, but rail routeboxes are a form of succession box, and succ boxes are typically unsourced. On articles about British railway stations, such routeboxes are a normal feature: and for services which no longer run, it is normal to show the open/closed status for the line in each direction, and for the next station in that direction. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the kind of unsourced edit that should be, not only permitted, but encouraged. I was moved to initiate this thread by the posting of {{uw-unsourced4}} on the talk page of a newbie who had, apparently in good faith, made unsourced changes to date ranges of taxoboxes, dates that are hardly ever (perhaps never) sourced. The lower levels of uw-unsourced were not used. This can only be described as bullying. Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you're saying here... in your post of 22:19, 11 April 2013 you complained about me adding unsourced material, yet you now say that it should be encouraged? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Heavens, no! I was unhappy that you both used the templates and added unsourced material. My whole point is that the templates, which discourage any unsourced additions, are unsatisfactory; one argument for this thesis is that their use is incompatible adding perfectly acceptable unsourced material such as statuses to routeboxes. Peter Brown (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In response to the original concern... The source deficient edits aren't what is prohibited... The WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by insisting on putting it back multiple times without citing it is what is prohibited. Technical 13 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It would make sense to have a template complaining about this behavior. It certainly isn't clear that the uw-unsourced templates have been seen as addressing this situation. Redrose64 posted {{uw-unsourced2}} on this user talk page on May 13, 2012 although the user's contributions show no repeated edits to the same page until May 23. Peter Brown (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Concerning 62.196.45.253 - this was an IP-hopping user who, over a period of several weeks, had posted random "facts" about the London Underground, which to the average reader unfamiliar with LU history, might seem plausible: but to one who has studied LU history for 30 years, were obviously bogus, possibly placed with the intent to mislead. A good example is this edit; and my templating of the IP on 13 May was probably in response to this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, this behavior is certainly prohibited by WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, specifically the last bullet point in the section. Perhaps a template specifically addressing violations of this section would be appropriate. For your purposes, the uw-vandalism templates would certainly have been appropriate and perhaps also uw-error. I urge you to refrain from using uw-unsourced unless and until these templates are so reworded that they do not contest constructive unsourced edits. Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the intention of the templates was as Technical 13 suggests, the idea is an excellent one. Level 2 could be reworded:
Please do not restore material deleted because it was unsourced, as you did in Article, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
For now, it would be best to hold comments about the precise wording or proposals for corresponding text on the other levels. What do folks think of the concept? Peter Brown (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That narrows the scope and meaning of the template significantly without any real reason to, and I had to read that sentence a few times to understand what it was trying to say. It's worded very awkwardly, and adding "likely to be challenged" to the current wording would solve any issue with how it's worded. - SudoGhost19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Uw-unsourced, continued
Okay, that proposal went nowhere; even Technical 13, whose comment inspired it, has failed to endorse it. We do have general agreement, though, (don't we?) that the existing templates are unsatisfactory. How about SudoGhost's proposal for level 2:
Please do not add or change content likely to be challenged without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
An important purpose of the templates, the most important in my opinion, is to educate inexperienced editors concerning Wikipedia policy. To accomplish this purpose, the information provided must be correct. The uw-unsourced templates fail on this count. Worse, they have been used maliciously, to squelch newbies who have acted in accord with policy, posting unverified (but verifiable) information in good faith. Revision is needed!
If SudoGhost's proposal for level 2 is acceptable, wording has to be provided for the other levels. {{uw-controversial}} already seems to cover the level 1 case:
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you.
Almost all the user warnings use File:Information.svg and File:Stop hand nuvola.svg. These files (and possibly other user warning files that I've not seen) are licensed under licenses that require attribution, and are not in the public domain. These licenses require us to at least link to the image page when clicking on the image to view author/license information. Currently, this is disabled. This is in violation of those licenses however. We either need to get new public domain images, or enable linking to the image page. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)06:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
You didn't need to add the image names... you just needed to remove the empty |link= parameter, that being the code which had forced a de-link. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The images also neded alt text for screen reader users like myself, which I've just added. I've also added alt text and links to {{Uw3}} for consistency. I accidentally discovered this problem while warning a user for adding unsourced text. Graham8709:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
COI user-warning template, part 2
Dear all: I'm trying again, since I got only one piece of constructive feedback in my last thread.
Currently, the {{uw-coi}} template includes four points of advice:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
In the first point, "Exercise great caution" is vague and can be misinterpreted. The phrase "you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with" is too wordy.
I propose that it should instead include seven points of advice, adapted from Ocaasi's guide with help from Mr. Ellsworth:
You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it.
Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. (Exceptions.)
Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or create a draft in your user space.
Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, sell, or whitewash.
If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject.
Have us review your draft.
Work with us and we'll work with you.
The proposed text provides advice which is more specific and therefore easier to follow. For example, "Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies" is a vague reference to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The line "Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, sell, or whitewash" is better: it summarizes both policies.
The proposed text is more concise: "Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)" is replaced by the shorter "Do not edit related articles".
The proposed text has additional advantages.
Do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes? If you disagree, why?
I've made a request to get some stuffs added to/modified for Twinkle and since COI stuff is included, some of you may be interested if you haven't already seen it. Here is the post. Thank you for your time and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the four points with the seven adapted from Ocaasi. I feel that my arguments, earlier in this thread, outweigh Yworo's complaint. Yworo wrote, "I see no reason to change the template". But "a statement of like or dislike is not useful without reasons for that like or dislike". I've taken into account Mr. Ellsworth's objection, and edited point 2 because of it. Nobody else seems to have made any other argument about why the four points were better. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see any consensus above and IMO this isn't the right place to seek consensus about this specific template which summarises WP:COI. I've therefore reverted back to the previous version. WT:COI would be a much better place and a note at WP:COIN would also be helpful to alert editors who deal with COIs such as myself. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this proposal. Here are some of my concerns:
You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it — Oh, but think twice about that, because there are crazy people on the Internet, and some of them are at Wikipedia.
Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. (Exceptions.) — Except please notice that the exceptions are so wide that you can do almost anything short of spamming without violating any actual guideline or policy.
Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or create a draft in your user space. — Sure, go ahead. Somebody might look at it one of these days.
Have us review your draft. — Good luck with that. Most volunteers aren't willing to do this kind of boring work. Someday you'll find one of the noticeboards where you can make that request. You'll know you're in the right place when you see all the other requests that are being ignored.
Work with us and we'll work with you. — Well, some of us will. Some of us will also scream bloody murder if you try to.
In short, this proposal is not based on the practical realities. It's good in theory, but it just doesn't work in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply WhatamIdoing. In response to your bulleted points:
Crazy people who might do what?
The exceptions allow COI users to do only the following: A) To remove spam, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, and typos. B) To revert their own COI edits. C) To add reliable sources. D) And to make other edits, with clear talk-page consensus. Do A, B, C, and D truly add up to allowing users to do "almost anything short of spamming"?
It seems to me that requests on the paid editor help board are normally handled within a week. Do you have any counterevidence?
I don't remember having ever seen any Wikipedian deal with COI editors in anything less than a professional manner. And I definitely don't remember ever having seen a Wikipedian "scream bloody murder" in response to COI edits. Is the unprofessionalism you describe common?
Have you read the first sentence of Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia? "For some editors of Wikipedia, having their "real life" identity discovered can be a major problem, threatening their well-being, careers, or even personal safety." I talked to an admin who received threatening phone calls at home because of normal work here. Do you think that disclosure is worth risking a phone call from someone who has decided that they way to handle a content dispute is to phone your home and tell you the names of your kids and where they go to school?
"Non-controversial edits" lists six different types, not your four, and those are examples, not an exhaustive list of permissible actions.
That's only one board. COIN and other pages get regular complaints from people who are trying to play by the rules and can't get any responses on article talk pages. Keep in mind, too, that "paid editors" is not the only COI out there.
Yes. We have a small, vocal minority of editors who are horrified by the idea that anybody might get paid to do what they're doing for free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Way too many templates
Am I right in thinking that the number of warning templates has greatly increased over the last few months? The current number is overwhelming, and really tiresome to navigate. Many of the templates seem overly specific as well (as examples, do we really need standard messages for 'Incorrectly formatting disambiguation pages', 'Overly hasty tagging of articles for speedy deletion' and 'User page in inappropriate category'? These are all unusual circumstances where a personalised message would be much more more appropriate). At very least this page needs a list of 'frequently used templates' or similar. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that over the last few months almost no new templates have been added; unless I'm missing somthing? If you feel a template is unnecessary or no longer useful then you can create a new discussion at TfD and suggest its deletion. Pol430talk to me18:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
uw-biog set of warnings
Some of these (certainly 1 and possibly 4) rather imply that the scope is just "biog" articles; they should be flexible enough to cover when someone's put assertions about living people into other articles (as is covered by the BLP policy). Pseudomonas(talk)13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Uw-vandalism1
There really ought to be a link in this warning template to the Sandbox. If vandals were encouraged to use the Sandbox, perhaps they wouldn't continue vandalising.- Gilliam (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Should Warning 1 of the UW-Vandalism Series be revised?
My Take on UW-Vandalism 1 And Possibly used as a new UW-Vandalism 1
Hi There, I'm DDreth, It appears that one or several edits to Example has been undone because it wasn't constructive, If you were doing test edits and didn't meant to change the page, Don't worry! I have restored the page to the last version, If you would like to make test edits use the sandbox, If you got any questions, or if you believe your edits were constructive and it shouldn't be reverted. Leave a message at my talk page, Thanks! DDreth21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The {{uw-ew}} template currently says "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.", but makes no mention of 3RR, and hasn't since 2011. If the reader isn't already aware of 3RR, this line of the warning template doesn't make a lot of sense, and suggests that it's possible to "edit war" by making a single revert.
Would this be more useful as something like "Reverting the same article more than three times in 24 hours may result in a block; slower but repeated reversion is also considered disruptive."? --McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just noticed that Template:Uw-own4im uses "you will be blocked" instead of "you may be blocked", which is used in all other templates of this kind that I'm familiar with. Should it be changed? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose that the statement "a page you have created yourself" be removed from the warning, as users who remove speedy tags didn't necessarily create the article in question (they seemed to have done so in most cases, but...). ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?07:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:CSD only disallows the creator from removing it. CSD is for non-controversial deletions. If someone other than the creator removes it, then most likely it won't be non-controversial. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Better Wording
I'd be more than willing to go through them all myself and get them, but I wanted to make sure it'd be fine.
Currently, most blocking templates say this:
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
In particular, this text: you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text. I think it would sound better if it were changed to: you may appeal this block by adding this text below the notice. - Amaury (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good. Maybe add a colon after "notice" and change it to "this notice" because a user may have multiple notices and it may be unclear what is defined as a notice. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)07:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Done! It was easy, too. I got it on Template:Uw-block and it changed across all templates. That last part now reads: If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Amaury (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:uw-delete 1
I just gave a warning to a user using the above template only to revert myself because of the inaccurate message: "Hello, I'm placeholder. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary." The problem was the user removed the content but also provided an edit-summary: i made this change because i though it didn't make sense. So the warning did not apply to them. I think this template is confusing because it mixes two issues: Blanking and lack of edit summary. It should be about one or the other but not both. This needs fixing asap. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις05:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
uw-vandalism1 - when reverter and warner are different editors
Hallo, I've had a problem with {{uw-vandalism1}} a couple of times because the wording is "Hello, I'm xxx. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!"
Sometimes I add the template to a user talk page after someone else has spotted and reverted the vandalism but hasn't added a message.
I see that {{uw-test1}} has passive, more versatile, wording: "Hello, I'm xxx. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you."
Could we have {{uw-vandalism1}} modified to read something like: "Hello, I'm xxx. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!"
There is also {{uw-vandalism0}} which replicates the completely passive voice of the old versions of uw-vandalism1. You can also skip to level 2, which uses the passive voice. The reason we suggested not using that kind of passive message in the RFC that lead to the current version is because A) the most common use case by far is warning someone you reverted B) brand new or anonymous editors don't understand how reverting really works. When you say "has been undone" they don't necessarily understand that you mean another (human) editor, as opposed to some kind of automated system. It's more effective with both good and bad faith editors to introduce them to the idea that people like you are paying attention and reverting bad edits. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk20:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug? Feature?
I have just discovered a bug (feature?) in the {{uw-advert}} template (which I presume is a common bug/feature in all of the uw-xxx templates). If the original warner forgets to subst the template, then the name in the warning ("Hello, I'm <name>...") changes whenever a different editor posts a message after the original warning. Thus, if user A warns user B, and then user C comes along and makes a completely unrelated post on user B's page, the template will be now read "Hello, I'm C..." when it should read "Hello, I'm A". I don't know if the subst bot is smart enough to fix this error by examining the page history and replacing the correct name, or if will just leave whatever name happens to be there by the time the bot updates the page, but in either case, even a temporary misattribution seems to be a bad bug. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is because it uses the {{REVISIONUSER}}variable, which indicates the editor at last edit. If you subst: the user warning template (as all of them should be), the {{REVISIONUSER}} gets substituted as well, so the name is fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In Template:Uw-3rr, I have changed "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" to "Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing". In this sentence, "being" is a gerund, properly preceded by a possessive. Being, not you, is the object of the first part of the sentence. For examples and discussion of how this principle works, please see this link, this link, or this one. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, interesting, but clearly we should simplify the language to prevent the current ping-ponging. Any suggestion of how we make:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. more based on
Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned or
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption ?
The "ping-ponging" you mention has been brought on by only two editors apparently unaware of the proper grammar. If the question comes up again this section of discussion can be referenced. Isn't it ironic that there should be a mini-edit war over a word in an edit war warning. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The text "This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution." is rather contradictory: It is stating that you are breaking the law, yet that action is merely undesired. Can that be changed to "unacceptable" or "inappropriate" or something else to be a better choice of wording? Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Uw-spam1-bot/default
I saw the spam1 bot default, I feel like i should update it to match the bot warnings of the future, today!
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, atleast one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.
I noticed that we have multiple templates for users who talk on article pages. In addition to uw-talkinarticle found on the list, we also have the uw-cia series (1234) of templates. The only reference I can find to these is a talk page archive from 2007. Shouldn't we decide on one or the other and delete what we don't decide on? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose that the following text or something similar to it be added somewhere in the template:
Note that this is not an automated process. Administrators will review your request carefully, so please do not submit botched unblock requests, as they will be declined.
This is because some people simply don't seem to get it (I'd link an example, but I'm afraid that could be a personal attack). This is a suggestion, not a request. Ginsuloft (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the way you described the problem, I think "frivolous", "inappropriate", "improper" or something would be better than "botched", because "botched" sounds like messing the template syntax up more than it does a bad reason. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, frivolous is what I meant and I agree with you. Spammers often submit requests that are doomed to be declined because they don't even counter the reason the block was issued, often repeatedly. It's always the spammers who do this, never vandals. This is just a guess but it may be sort of a learned helplessness they have acquired from spamming other sites, hoping that a bored/tired admin will just randomly accept their request so they can continue spamming. While this may be the case on some other sites, on Wikipedia it is obviously not possible because admins are selected by consensus and everyone can see your history and ask about any action you've done. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding a sig to the template for uw:coi?
I didn't know the slightest way to go about requesting it, so I'm posting here. Is there a way to add an automated signature to the template for alerting people of a conflict of interest? The template in question is: {{subst:Uw-coi}}. It would just be fairly handy to have it automatically sign for you when posting it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
To be honest I don't know if this is exactly what you meant, but I added a parameter sig=yes similar to Template:Uw-block. It only works when the template is substituted and the word "yes" can be replaced with any word, even "no", but "yes" is recommended for clarity. Ginsuloft (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Uw-point
I wondered was a talk page template for users who are being WP:POINTy, and although {{uw-point}} exists, it takes the odd standpoint of "your recent edit to the user page of another user could give an editor the impression that you are forcing your own point", which isn't really what WP:POINT is about. From the edit history it was created last July by a user "creating my first template", and has had no other edits since. Is it worth bringing this in line with WP:POINT? --McGeddon (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Template for linking words in article body to external URLs instead of using references
I think there should be a template for linking words in article body to external URLs instead of to other Wikipedia articles. I run into this frequently with new editors, and it is a violation of WP:ELPOINTS, which says that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable."
--Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 02:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Uw-canvass: biased users
{{uw-canvass}} reads: "It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages [...]". I would say it is not the contacted users that are biased, they are likely to simply have an opinion which is perfectly legitimate; but that it is the chosen set of users that is biased. In other words, the choice is biased (the contacting editor), not the users (the contacted editors). I changed it accordingly, but please improve, if possible. - Nabla (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah – I'm afraid that, while evil and malicious could pass as reasonable inferences from behavior, "malodorous" is just WP:NPA. No way to know that over the 'net (yet) —[AlanM1(talk)]—18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have only come to read more about templates because of a user who left a threatening message on my Talk page last week.
First, shouldn't there be a progression from a 1st warning, 2nd warning...last warning, block/ban? I've looked at dozens of other users' Talk pages and frequently, there is only a "final warning" given (often with no explanation) and this seems unfair and drastic. It's also not unusual to see these warnings given by another user in an editing dispute. Are these templates really meant to be used at weapons to post on the pages of people we disagree with?
Also, I don't think that severe warnings ("do X again and you WILL be banned/blocked") should be posted by anyone other than an Admin. I mean, I'm just a user...what right do I have to tell another editor that if do another particular act, it will lead to a block or a ban? That's an idle threat and could be construed as intimidation or harassment. But I've seen some trigger-happy, template posters who lay on these ultimatums with the slightest provocation.
Shouldn't there be guidelines on who is allowed to post the highest level of warning and also that an earlier warning must be given (and explained) before a fellow editor is threatened with a ban? If this exists already, please point me in the right direction because I see more instances where template messages are used incorrectly (as blunt instruments) than where they are used appropriately. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Generally the progression is 1-2-3-4, yes. But experienced editors may choose to skip a level or two (or give an only warning) based on the situation - Wikipedia is not some rigid bureaucracy. And don't forget earlier warnings could have been deleted. If an editor is abusing templates the best thing is to bring it up with them and then go to WP:ANI if the behaviour doesn't change. As to your other point, I looked at a few templates and they all say "may be blocked". What template says "will be blocked"? --NeilNtalk to me13:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there are probably a few more. I'm not real skilled at all the fancy formatting used on the main page, but hoping somebody who is can stick these out there, they are useful but not real widely known. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd guess that all the templates in Category:Unblock process need to be added there, but I'm unfamiliar with the block-process, so I'll leave that for someone else to do (or advise on).
That's awesome, thanks. Looking at that category, there may be a few more, but several of them are kind of "built-in" to the standard replies to unblock requests, and some of them are old, I've already sent one to MFD. I'll try to review the whole category and compile a list here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Need updating?
Given that WP:COI has been updated to suggest that editors with a financial connection to the subject of the article avoid direct-editing, does Template:{{Uw-coi}} need updating? It came to mind because I saw a disclosed PR editor where:
I have advised him to avoid direct-editing
Another editor has threatened him with a block if he continues direct-editing
The Talk page template on the article, which has garnered strong consensus, says to avoid direct-editing
Furthermore, the template is far too nice -- those who are here exclusively for promotion are not welcome on Wikipedia. See [6] for an example. I don't use this template any more for this reason, preferring level 2/3/4 spam/advert warnings instead. MER-C04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It currently reads 'I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to {{{1}}}'. There has been some discussion of this and I'm surprised no grammatically correct solution was accepted; the current wording makes no sense. I thought it still had the perfectly sensible 'one or more', actually. I have heard the argument that 'one or more' makes it seem as if we are saying that 'your contribs all suck, who knows how many got reverted' - but, by that same logic, one might say that the wording 'such as' implies 'your contribs all suck, who knows which one(s) got reverted/to which page you contributed to/etc.'. Am I the only one who sees this?
My point is not that it actually does come off that way, but that if it is phrased this way now and not causing any problems, we might as well introduce another piece of wording that might have the same implication but at least makes it make sense - that is, to say 'I undid one or more [...]'.
To be grammatically correct, the template would have to say (roughly) 'I undid one or more of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to {{{1}}}' or 'I undid one of your recent contributions that you made to {{{1}}}'. It has been argued that the latter wording is too terse. I don't see the logic for this, however.
So which one should we go with: nonsensical and grammatically flawed, possibly too 'brushing-off', or too 'terse'? I would like to see us adopt wording that makes sense. Cathfolant (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on re-reading what I wrote I think 'one [...] such as the one' is actually an ok grammatical structure. I'm not always sure about these things...in any case, however, I think we should possibly provide for the instance of warning after reverting more than one contribution. If 'one or more', which would convey this nicely, is truly unacceptable we should include some sort of parameter. Cathfolant (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That is, something to the effect of 'I undid {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|several|one}} of [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contributions]]{{#if:{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|, such as the one you made to [[{{{2}}}]]{{#if:{{{3|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{3}}} this edit]</span>}}| that you made to [[{{{1}}}]]{{#if:{{{2|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{2}}} this edit]</span>}}}}}} because {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|they|it}} didn't appear constructive.'. How does that sound? Half-decent? Cathfolant (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone delete existing block templates and merge into this: {{BlockNotice}}?
The coding should look like this:
Extended content
== Block Notice ==
<div name="Deletion notice" class="boilerplate metadata" id="delete" style="background-color:#fee; margin:1em; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
[[File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|75px|right|alt=|link=]] Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:<br />
:''{{{1|[[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation. No specific reason has been provided.}}}''<br />
This block will last for:<br />
:'''''{{{2|No block length provided.}}}''<br />
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]].<br /><br />If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.<br /></div>
<noinclude>
== Usage ==
'''Only administrators should be using this template.''' This template is for letting blocked users know that they have been blocked, why they have been blocked, and the length of their block.
If you are going to use this template, be sure you fill all fields shown in bold below:<br />
<code>{{Subst:BlockNotice|'''Policy violation'''|'''Length of block'''}}~~~~</code>
'''EXAMPLE:'''<br />
{{BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011
'''CODE USED:'''
<code>{{Subst:BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011</code>
Here's the final look it should look like:
Block Notice
Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:
Policy violation. No specific reason has been provided.
This block will last for:
No block length provided.
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia Policy.
If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.
Not done. Please open a broader discussion such an WP:RFC if you want to make this change, which is not nearly as minor as you seem to think. At the very least you should provide some hint of a reason why this would be desirable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, "In other words" reads confusingly and is a superfluous phrase. Words other than what? If the change were to proceed, I would suggest a rewording to: "Being blocked means you cannot edit or create pages,..." Hertz1888 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeking comment regarding possible new warning template
I think we need a warning template at multiple levels for users who added excessive plot detail to articles. Any comments or suggestions? DKqwerty04:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC) If I missed an already-existing template for this, I apologize and just point me in the right direction.
I don't think that this is suitable for templated warnings. Gratuitous problematic editing like vandalism, content removal, test edits etc are the right thing to use templates on. Such editors aren't worth wasting a great deal of effort on. Unlike vandalism, writing excessive plot details takes a degree of editorial effort, so first of all it is not likely to be done at a prolific rate. It is not going to be particularly onerous to give an individual human response. Secondly, good-faith editors who have put such effort into their contributions to the encyclopaedia deserve better treatment. We should not be discouraging them with template warnings, we should talk to them as fellow editors. SpinningSpark18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just discovered that we have the warning templates {{uw-agf1}}, {{uw-agf2}}, and {{uw-agf3}}. Is it just me, or are these templates counterproductive? To me, it seems to be a failure of AGF to put one of these templates on another editor's talk page. If we were really assuming good faith, wouldn't we just leave the editor a message asking them what was wrong? I worry that the only real effect of these templates will be to make the templated editor angry or annoyed, rather than helping to guide them toward following our behavioural guidelines. With behavioural issues like this I'm a big fan of the theory that we should be leading by example, and I think these templates might set a bad precedent here. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, these templates seem kind of ironic, but so does the {{uw-tempabuse}} series. How does my proposed {{uw-agf4im}} template sound:
@Mr. Stradivarius: I think it might be worth taking them to TfD, especially since they don't really provide any information about exactly what the person needs to do differently. Ginsuloft & DDreth I really can't think of a time when it would be appropriate and necessary to give someone a warning about not AGF which doesn't assume good faith. Any and everytime there is an AGF issue it should be explained and discussed since WP:AGF depends a lot on personal interpretation of comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Template index/User talk namespace. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion.
Hi Template index/User talk namespace. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion.
The tone of the text you added to Tom Anderson (entrepreneur) with this edit was inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and was reverted. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider or social networking site, inappropriate commentary and remarks will be deleted.
Fixed — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
Please stop treating Wikipedia like a TV guide, as you did at BBC One. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Dig it!. Excellent job to everyone involved. This is how collaboration is supposed to work. --Jayron32 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop making edits to the taxonomy templates that do not follow the standard format, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus. Continuing to disrupt the taxonomy templates may lead to your account being blocked. Thank you.
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
|
| The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Error: No topic specified. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the #Final decision section of the decision page.
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. It also appears that Arthur Rubin has handled the request. I'm disabling the requested edit template. If you need further assistance, please feel free to re-enable it. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 01:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Pol430 talk to me 15:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Done I've changed Template:Uw-softerblock & Template:Unblock-softer per the above (with a little change to the language on Unblock-softer which looks to make more sense. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you restore defamatory content to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Resolved
Template:Uw-vandalism4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Resolved. Mr. Rubin, below, convinced me that my original idea was a bad one. Unforgettableid (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
or 
) located above the edit window.
or 
) located above the edit window.
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Question: - Various reasons have been given as to why the current wording of the first sentence of these templates do not work, so what wording do you think would fix these issues while still fixing the percieved "personal" issue? - SudoGhost 23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
is inappropriate. Your suggested change to {{Uw-unsourced2}}, though, would do the job, and a similar rewording would do for {{Uw-unsourced3}}: "Please stop adding unsourced content likely to be challenged. . . ." As regards {{Uw-unsourced1}}, the text admittedly does not contain an explicit misrepresentation of policy, but it misleadingly suggests that any unsourced material, including minor ones relating to the Winteringham railway station, are officially discouraged.
Not done. Please open a broader discussion such an WP:RFC if you want to make this change, which is not nearly as minor as you seem to think. At the very least you should provide some hint of a reason why this would be desirable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is your only warning. The next time you assume bad faith on other users right now, it could result in a loss of editing privileges. DDreth [talk to me] 00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)