{{editprotected}}

The small icon version of this is not as far to the left as it is for the other small semi-protected against vandalism templates, and could get in the way of a featured article star.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to match {{pp-semi-vandalism}} but I noticed the others don't agree. I'll leave a message for User:AzaToth about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was prolly forgotten when the other templates changes before. _→AzaToth 18:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this interwiki link into the template: ro:Format:Pp-semi-sock (the documentation is transcluded from another template, used by other templates as documentation, so no use to add the interwiki link there). Thanks Ark25 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change:

|small={{{small|}}}
|expiry={{{expiry|}}}

To:

|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|expiry={{{expiry|}}}

This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the word "currently" (used twice in this template) redundant here? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can be removed; they are in different clauses: "is currently disabled" and "sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template which can be used for both semi and full protection. Would someone please check the code and either let me know if it's ok. If so feel free to move it to {{Pp-sock}}, or I'll do that myself. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Callanecc, I think it looks great. I have a few questions:

• Since banned users links to Wikipedia:List of banned users, shouldn't blocked probably link to {{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&limit=999}} or even Special:Log/block instead of Wikipedia:Blocking policy?
• I'm assuming protection policy pointing to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection in the "fully protected" version was a typo?
• Wouldn't it make more sense for administrator to point to {{fullurl:Special:ListUsers|group=sysop&limit=2000}} than Wikipedia:Administrators?

What do you think? Technical 13 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while ever we are maintaining a comprehensive list of banned users it's worth linking to, on the other hand we don't have that for blocked users the log is just that and the vast majority of them don't create sock puppets so really the only way to go is to link to the blocking policy, I guess we could link to the banning policy.

I've fixed the link to the semi protection section.

That one I disagree on, there are links on WP:ADMIN on how to get in contact with an admin and the sentence is referring to the position/user right rather than a person with the right. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, was just a question
• Sweet
• "...ask an administrator to make an edit..." certainly reads much more like the sentence is referring to a person with the right "an administrator", but I'm not going to get too upset either way.

• I didn't have any other questions or suggestions, and barring anyone else popping in with one, I'd say go ahead and move it. :) Technical 13 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re admin link, it's used as in one of the people will do this for you rather than contact one of these people to do it for you. Technical 13 would you please check the other two (-semi-blp and -dispute) and I'll move them at the same time. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner#Proposal to convert all protection templates to use this module. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people who wrote the documentation know, and they apparently assume everyone else knows too, so they forgot to actually say in Template:Pp-sock/doc what this template does. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GXXF T • C 20:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]