Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page

    uw-coi and uw-paid

    [edit]

    I think that the {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-paid}} templates can be improved.

    In my experience people who read those templates perceive them as an attack, even if it is clear that they have a COI/are being paid.

    I don't think that that is the intention behind the templates, and people don't respond in the way we want them to (e.g. they become defensive or hostile, which is counterproductive).

    I have some quick drafts that are less likely to illicit a negative response:

    Feel free to edit them, they are drafts and far from perfect. These are just some quick examples to illustrate my point.

    What do y'all think? Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Polygnotus: I agree 100% with what you say about the existing templates. They are seriously in need of major rewriting. I haven't yet studied your draft replacements, because I'm out of time, but I'll try to remember to come back to them and have a look. JBW (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the overall idea. The new drafts definitely need more links. We shouldn't assume, for example, that new editors know what a talk page is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the bulleting in both originals and your drafts, and I like the bolding in the originals. Definitely worth pursuing. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus, are you interested in pursuing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing Yes, but I am about as diplomatic as getting trampled by a mammoth and a truly terrible writer. You are a wordsmith, smarter than I am, and this joke of a language is your native one. And you are experienced with getting things done in this area of Wikipedia, while I have to be bold and hope no one notices. I do however know that people almost universally react very negatively when you post uw-coi or uw-paid on their talkpage, as if you insulted their child. And I do not care if someone is getting paid or not, if their edits are not an improvement I am going to revert them anyway. Enforcing the Terms of Service is not my job. I want people to follow the rules, and it is more likely that they do that if I post a template that politely asks them to. Polygnotus (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I am not an admin or template editor so I can't edit the template directly. And I have very little experience with the DR process (except in achieving a numerical majority). Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, do you mind if @JBW, @Mathglot, or I edit User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI and User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID, so we can try to incorporate some of these ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing Anyone is free to edit any page in my userspace, except vandals. Polygnotus (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Am willing to assist in principle, but short on time at the moment but will contribute as I can. Before we get to it, let me just clarify or ask whether you want to change existing templates by incorporating new wording or other ideas here, or whether you want to create parallel templates in a kinder, gentler form that co-exist with existing ones? There is precedent for the latter, if that's what you want. Consider templates {{uw-subtle1}} and {{uw-subtle2}} compared to {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-vandalism2}}. (Note: {{uw-subtle3}} and {{uw-subtle4}} exist, but are not all that different from uw-v3 and uw-v4.) So are we doing something like uw-coi-subtle and uw-paid-subtle alongside the existing ones, or replacing them? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot We had a previous conversation over at User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Biting where WhatamIdoing wrote: It would be better to try to replace the existing templates. Polygnotus (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Now that the goal is clear, it should be easier to get there. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pinging me, WhatamIdoing. As I said, I intended to look at this long ago. The fact that I didn't is largely a result of attention deficit disorder, the biggest plague of my life.
    I agree that the existing templates should be replaced. The trouble with leaving them in place and just creating alternative is that experience shows that scarcely anyone will actually use the new ones. Most people won't even realise they are there, and others will continue with the old ones because of a remarkably common impression that they are in some sense the "official" notifications, which "should" be used.
    The suggested templates look pretty good to me. One change I would make, though, is to add explicit mention of the relevant guidelines etc; for example, User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI contains a link to the conflict of interest guideline, but it doesn't say that that's what it is. I would put in something like "a fuller explanation us in Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest", or "you may like to look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest for further information. I also see that that page says "As a reminder, the Wikimedia Terms of Use require disclosing any paid editing relationships..." but it isn't a reminder, because the fact hasn't been mentioned before on that page, and there's no reason to expect the editor to have previously been told about it. JBW (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request 29 April 2025

    [edit]

    The uw-error4 has the phrase "you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information", whereas the uw-error4im has the phrase "if you continue to deliberately introduce factual errors into articles" instead of the one seen in uw-error4. Can somebody change this to the one seen in uw-error4 for consistency? Thanks.

    Diff:

    −
    if you continue to deliberately introduce factual errors into articles
    		+
    if you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introduce factual errors again

    92.55.125.192 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: for a start, your suggested change is grammatically incorrect (by deliberately introduce). M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you also change "introduce" to "introducing", then it's grammatically correct Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2025

    [edit]

    Change "to Wikipedia again" to "into Wikipedia again". Spam links are usually inserted into a website and not "to" a website. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-editsummary

    [edit]

    Updated sentence two of {{uw-editsummary}} (diff). The wording was very wishy-washy, as if we were begging without justification, but in reality, edit summaries are required by policy (here) and we should not be shy about saying so. Still, as only a level-1, it is worded very gently, with no mention of blocks, but the policy link was not included before, and really needs to be. This rectifies that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-biog1, documentation

    [edit]

    Documentation of templates Template:Uw-biog1, Template:Uw-biog2, Template:Uw-biog3 (those I checked) include showing Multi-level user warning or notice templates, with clickable show field, which clicked shows other related templates.

    After reviewing what I wanted, I would like to hide that again (most of it was not related to task at hand), but couldn't find a clickable hide area (button?) to do it. I could get it hidden again only by reloading the page.

    Could the template used to show those related templates be used in a way to show a hide clickable area (button?) (and for all templates where this is used? Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marjan Tomki SI: The "[hide]" link is there, but it might be off the right-hand side of your screen. After clicking "[show]", you should find that at the bottom of your browser window there is a scrollbar. Slide that to the right, so that the window contents move left. This will reveal the "[hide]" link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request 6 May 2025

    [edit]

    Change the link in uw-create1 warning from Wikipedia:List of policies to Wikipedia:List of guidelines

    Diff:

    −
    may not conform to some of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of policies|guidelines]] for new pages,
    		+
    may not conform to some of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|guidelines]] for new pages,

    37.25.85.161 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

    [edit]

    Please change "vandalised" to "vandalized" to keep it in line with other templates, such as Template:Uw-vandalism4 RaschenTechner (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2025

    [edit]

    Change wording from "the loss of editing privilages" to "being blocked from editing" Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @CyberTheTiger: Was this change discussed somewhere? I see you also edited Template:Uw-attempt1, but I cannot find any related discussion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request 14 May 2025

    [edit]

    Grammar fix in Uw-unsourced2:

    Diff:

    −
    Please review the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] and to see how to add references to an article
    		+
    Please review the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] to see how to add references to an article

    -- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging JBW (talk · contribs) as the editor who changed the text and created this error. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

    [edit]

    Add a sentence stating Wikipedia's policy for citing sources Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Template:Uw-unsourced1 has two links to guidelines about sources and a link to a how-to guide about sources. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Uw-toppost-section?

    [edit]

    Is there a warning template for someone posting a new comment at the top of a discussion section? If not, could {{uw-toppost}} be modified to add a section switch?

    I am referring to a situation such as this: [1] where a new different editor posts to the top of the section above the initiating comment.

    -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New block templates to go with certain "Uw-" multi-level warnings:

    [edit]

    I am creating new user block templates for certain actions that there are multi-level warnings for. Examples include:

    Mario662629 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mario662629: You're not an administrator. Why would you need these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why, but I'm also worried about something bad happening to my account because of this. Anyways, this might be done just to have a block template for every multi-level user warning. Mario662629 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mario662629: When an administrator blocks a user, they select an option from the following list: 
    [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]
[[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]
[[WP:Copyright violations|Copyright infringement]]
Creating [[WP:Attack page|attack pages]]
Violations of the [[WP:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy
Persistent addition of [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|unsourced]] content
Creating [[WP:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] or other inappropriate pages
Using Wikipedia for [[WP:Spam|promotion]] or [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]] purposes
[[WP:Spam|Promotion]] / [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]]-only account
[[WP:Edit warring|Edit warring]]
Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]
[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]
[[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or violations of the [[WP:Harassment|harassment]] policy
Making [[WP:No legal threats|legal threats]]
[[WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|Arbitration enforcement]]
[[WP:CTOP|Contentious topic]] restriction
[[WP:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]
Abusing [[WP:Sockpuppetry|multiple accounts]]
Repeatedly triggering the [[WP:Edit filter|edit filter]]
[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|Sockpuppetry]]
Long-term abuse
Clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]]
Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked
{{anonblock}}
{{anonblock}} <!-- Likely a school based on behavioral evidence -->
{{school block}}
{{rangeblock}}
{{blocked proxy}}
{{uw-upeblock}} <!-- Undisclosed paid editing for advertising or promotion -->
{{uw-ublock}} <!-- Username violation, soft block -->
{{uw-uhblock}} <!-- Username violation, hard block -->
{{uw-causeblock}} <!-- Username represents a non-profit, soft block -->
{{uw-ublock-wellknown}} <!-- Username represents a well-known person, soft block -->
{{uw-ublock-double}} <!-- Username closely resembles another user, soft block -->
{{uw-uhblock-double}} <!-- Attempted impersonation of another user, hard block -->
{{uw-softerblock}} <!-- Promotional username, soft block -->
{{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->
{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}} <!-- editor only attempts to add blacklisted links, see [[Special:Log/spamblacklist]] -->
{{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->
{{CheckUser block}}
{{checkuserblock-wide}}
{{checkuserblock-account}}
{{Tor}}
{{webhostblock}}
{{colocationwebhost}}
{{OversightBlock}}
    Your first two are not among these, and your third is covered by {{subst:Uw-disruptblock}}. The blocking policy goes into further detail. There is no one-to-one match between user warnings and block reasons, and there is not intended to be. I don't see why you might worry about something bad happening to your account. Have you been served warnings about any of these three potential issues? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mario662629 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you're talking about templates on user talk pages. What I am saying is that each message usually pairs with a block reason. For instance, if an admin blocks with a reason of Vandalism, they will serve a {{subst:uw-vblock}}. Gaming the system is not, of itself, a reason to block.
    What I want to know is why you want them to be created (and I see that you have begun creating them yourself) when you are not, at present, an administrator. If we were short of appropriate block messages, an existing experienced administrator would surely have created them, but only when absolutely necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-coi

    [edit]

    Imo this template's output text is verbose and difficult to understand. Even for me, who's familiar with Wikipedia's COI policies and is a native English speaker, it's hard to parse. I think it could be significantly reworded to be more digestible even for English as second language speakers. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't really seem that way to me, but English is my primary language so perhaps I'm simply unable to see how it can be problematic. Are there changes you'd like to propose? DonIago (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template: Uw-blockindefnotalk

    [edit]

    Could you please do not italicize the word 'also' in the message to ensure the consistency? Thanks. 14.245.39.26 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: The three italicised instances of the word "also" only occur when preceded by the word "See", which is also italicised. I don't see why one should be de-italicised and not the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing (?) level 4 warning template

    [edit]

    I've noticed that there is no level 4 warning for introducing incorrect pronouns, Uw-pronouns. I've used level 4 vandalism to substitute. I wondered if there was a reason for only level 1,2 and 3? Knitsey (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    The redirect Template:Uw-or has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 29 § Template:Uw-or until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace&oldid=1293607980"