Content deleted Content added
→uw-hblock: cmt |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20) (bot |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
|||
__FORCETOC__ |
|||
{{Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW|wp=yes|noarchives=yes|search=yes|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Wikiproject user warnings/templates/talk-header}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/templates/talk-header}} |
|||
{{Central|text=all [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:uw-|uw-* template]] talk pages and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings|WikiProject User warnings]] project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 8 |
|||
| |
|counter = 20 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|||
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none| |
|||
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archives/2005/01|WP:UW Archives 1]] |
|||
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archives/2006/01|WP:UW Archives 2]] |
|||
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archives/2007/01|WP:UW Archives 3]] |
|||
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 1|WP:UW Archives 4]] |
|||
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 2|WP:UW Archives 5]] |
|||
*WP:UW merged into [[WP:UTM]] |
|||
:WP:UTM archives |
|||
#[[/Archive 1|April 2005–April 2006]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 2|April 2006–October 2006]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 3|October 2006–January 2007]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 4|January 2007–February 2007]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 5|February 2007]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 6|February 2007–March 2007]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 7|March 2007–September 2007]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 8|September 2007–May 2008]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 9|April 2008–June 2009]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 10|June 2009–May 2010]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 11|May 2010–February 2011]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 12|February 2011–September 2013]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 13|October 2013–July 2015]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 14|July 2015–December 2016]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 15|December 2016–August 2018]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 16|August 2018–February 2020]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 17|February 2020–November 2020]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 18|December 2020–November 2021]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 19|November 2021–March 2023]] |
|||
#[[/Archive 20|March 2023–present]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
|||
{{shortcut|[[WT:UTM]]}} |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
{{archives|auto=long|index=/ArchiveIndex}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/ArchiveIndex|mask=Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|||
== [[Template:uw-spamublock]] == |
|||
If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject [[WP:UW/FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]] to see if it is answered there. |
|||
{{edit template-protected|template:uw-spamublock|answered=yes}} |
|||
== Subst paramter == |
|||
your account has been used for advertising or promotion -> it has been used for advertising or promotion |
|||
Minor nitpick to reduce repetition. <i><span style="font-family:Segoe print">[[User:Mori Calliope fan|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ffb8f3">Mori Calliope fan</span>]] [[User talk:Mori Calliope fan|<span style="background-color:#870900;color:#ffb8f3">talk</span>]]</span></i> 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Can this be added to the icon template call? ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 12:27 [[15 October]] [[2007]] (GMT). |
|||
:This seems to be a side effect of the changes made by {{u|Jpgordon}} in [[Special:Diff/1162488493]]. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Addition == |
|||
::Good nitpick, fixed. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇]]</small></sup> 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 == |
|||
perhaps on the end of these templates you could add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. It's not that big of a deal, but it would make life just a bit easier [[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#f00">C</font><font color="#f60">t</font><font color="#ff0">j</font><font color="#090">f</font><font color="#00f">8</font><font color="#60c">3</font>''']] [[User talk:Ctjf83|<sup>talk</sup>]] 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: does anyone have a problem if i just do this? [[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#f00">C</font><font color="#f60">t</font><font color="#ff0">j</font><font color="#090">f</font><font color="#00f">8</font><font color="#60c">3</font>''']] [[User talk:Ctjf83|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The uw templates did have an auto signature feature when they were first introduced. I know that there were objections and the feature was disabled. This was before my time on the WikiProject, but I do recall there was some controversy about it. One issue would be that some of the scripts do add a sig, so it would add double sigs if the template included one too.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::oh, so the scripts from like twinkle copy off these? I thought they were just for copy and pasting [[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#f00">C</font><font color="#f60">t</font><font color="#ff0">j</font><font color="#090">f</font><font color="#00f">8</font><font color="#60c">3</font>''']] [[User talk:Ctjf83|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I would also have to say leave out auto-sigs. It's not that hard to remember to sign the template like you sign any other comment, and changing that would break all existing scripts that use the uw warnings and confuse all the people who are used to the current setup. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::This was discussed at the beginning of the project and the answer was a resounding no, mainly because it's not standard throughout Wikipedia, which would lead to editors not remembering whish templates had to be signed and which didn't. The block templates have sig=(any char) only because they use div's. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Template:Uw-mislead3|answered=yes}} |
|||
== Cluttering links to disambiguation pages. == |
|||
Please fix [[Template:Uw-mislead3]], it expands with a <code><nowiki><!-- Template:uw-move3 --></nowiki></code> comment instead of <code><nowiki><!-- Template:uw-mislead3 --></nowiki></code>.<br> |
|||
I just had this shocking moment where I warned someone with a level 4 move disruption warning because I copied it and thought 'oh no, I warned them for move disruption in the third warning too, how did I not see it' - but no, turns out it's just the comment that's been wrong since the template was made. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091|2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091|talk]]) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Done}} -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggestion: Merge templates for removing XFD notices == |
|||
Can we get this template (and others like it) to avoid cluttering the "What links here" reports from disambiguation pages by ''not'' linking to the article if it is a disambig. That will make it easier for those of us who do a lot of disambig work to see what on the page is a link that really needs to be fixed. The http link to the edit itself should suffice. If not, can we force it to pipe links to "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" where "Foo" is a disambiguation page? Cheers! [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I really really don't think there's a way to do that automatically, sorry. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Which template in particular (the talk pages for most uw series templates redirect here)? Anyway, there is no way to detect if any particular page is a disambiguation page for "forcing" piping as you request, it would be up to the person leaving the warning to handle that in some manner. And if the problem edit in question was to the disambiguation page, you're just out of luck. Personally, I would just ignore all User talk namespace pages (and talk namespaces in general) when checking that sort of thing per [[WP:TALK#Others' comments]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Proposal: Merge AFD, RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD and MFD user warning templates into one. This would let editors use a centralized warnings list for deletion in general instead of having to go and carefully find the one for the appropriate XFD. If needed, we could add a parameter to disambiguate which. |
|||
== New uw template? == |
|||
Here's what the templates might look like:<br> |
|||
I've seen a few times people deleting web sources which go dead and often deleting the information soon after as unsourced! I've just read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22] which says you shouldnt do this. |
|||
Uw-xfd1: <code> Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd2: <code> Please do not remove deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd3: <code> Please stop. If you continue to remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd4: <code> You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a deletion notice or a comment from a deletion debate.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd4im: <code> This is your only warning; if you remove a deletion notice from a page or delete comments from a deletion debate again, you may be blocked from editing.</code><br> |
|||
Any suggestions welcome! <small>If you reply here, please ping me.</small> <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">[[W:EN:User:TheTechie|<span style="color:Green">thetechie@enwiki</span>]]</span>: [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="MediumBlue">~/talk/</span>]] <span style="">$</span></span> 23:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Link the plain and simple COI guide? == |
|||
Could someone put together a user warning template I can use to respond to a user who deletes a dead link without replacing it? Thanks [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]]([[User talk:AndrewRT|Talk]]) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. First draft at {{tl|Uw-defunct link}}. A few issues. The name which I would have used, "dead link", is taken. Anyone have a suggestion for a better (maybe more compact) name? I couldn't figure out a generic opening that would take an if parameter, so this template will break (leave <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> in the text) if you don't add the article's name as a first parameter. I don't imagine it will be a high use template and probably only used by experienced editors so I don't think that will create much of a problem.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 13:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tl|uw-dead-link}} doesn't seem to be taken. I've tried to make the parameter optional. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A lot of newcomers on Wikipedia might not be familiar with all of our policies and feel lost in the wordings, maybe it would be good to link a more beginner-friendly guide such as [[Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide]] in {{tl|uw-coi}} and {{tl|uw-coi-username}} to gently nudge them towards more responsible editing? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Likewise with {{tl|uw-deadlink}} and {{tl|uw-dead link}}. Perhaps you were thinking of {{tl|dead link}}? --[[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Vector legacy == |
|||
::::Many thanks! Looks good - I'll remember it next time I come across dead link deletions! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]]([[User talk:AndrewRT|Talk]]) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Moved to {{tl|Uw-dead link}}. You are correct Anomie. I forgot the Uw when checking that name and thus thought uw-dead link was taken.:-)--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The template currently says: "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you)." This seems to apply to the Vector Legacy skin, but not the current Vector 2022 skin. I think there are now two places "Move" can be: the Tools sidebar, or Tools menu, but I don't know which one appears by default. Depending on this, please can the template be reworded, maybe to something like: |
|||
==Missing third parameter usage description in sdd2== |
|||
* "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" action in the "Tools" menu]] at the top of the page (the "Tools" menu may be in a sidebar to the right of the page for you)." |
|||
The current usage description for {{tl|sdd2}} in the chart is incorrect. The correct paramters are 1) article name; 2) invalid reason given by csd tagger; and 3) reason why the csd tagger's rationale is incorrect. The current usage only has two parameters, and apparently {{tl|tltts}} only allows for two. Is there any way to fix this? The correct usage description, if a third parameter was allowed, would be something like: <nowiki>{{tltts|sdd2|Article not speedied - valid reason that just doesn't apply|par=Article|par2=reason given for deletion|par3=reason why the csd rationale provided does not apply}}</nowiki>--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
or |
|||
* "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" action in the "Tools" sidebar]] to the right of the page (the "Tools" sidebar may be hidden as a menu at the top of the page for you)." |
|||
Might also need a sentence there saying something like "if you're using the Vector legacy skin, there should be a [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]])." (Is there a way to automatically detect which skin the user is using, and display text appropriate to that? This might be more difficult if this template has to be subst'ed.) |
|||
Updating [[Help:Moving a page]], and a replacement for [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png]] would be nice to have, but probably not worth waiting for to make this change. |
|||
== Recently created uw templates == |
|||
Alternatively, is there a way to flag this up to the WMF team who implemented these changes to clean up? --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">[[User:Yodin|Yodin]]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>[[User talk:Yodin|T]]</sup></span> 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; {{tl|uw-badcsd}} : Redirects to [[User:Spebi/uw-badcsd]]; personally, I think if it's good enough for a redirect from the template namespace, it's good enough to actually be in the template namespace. I'm not sure if the template should be moved or the redirect RfDed, though. |
|||
; {{tl|uw-balkans}} : We discussed this [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#.7B.7Buw-balkans.7D.7D|above]] and seemed to conclude it's not appropriate for a uw template. Should we ''do'' something about it, and if so what? Possibilities include moving it, revising it, or TfDing it. |
|||
; {{tl|uw-unsourced4im}} : Redirects to {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}}. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that would call for a 4im warning rather than the normal series of uw-unsourced templates. |
|||
Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Template:Uw-cyberbully|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully]]== |
|||
:For {{tl|uw-badcsd}}, the template should be moved to template namespace. {{tl|uw-balkans}} should go through TFD and be removed as the message that the warning brings dosen't really fit the uw-series. The redirect at {{tl|uw-unsourced4im}} should be removed as I agree that there probably won't be a situation where this will need to be used. These are my thoughts. --[[User:Hdt83|<font color="336611" ><b><i>Hdt<font color="blue" >83</font></i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="brown" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Template:Uw-cyberbully|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully]].  All the best, <span style="color:#595959">‍—‍</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
== Templates warning against frivolous XfD/PROD nominations and comments? == |
|||
::{{tl|uw-badcsd}} resembles {{tl|sdd2}} - should merge content from sdd2 to make the all-new uw-badcsd so it can join [[WP:UTM]]. {{tl|uw-balkans}} should go, unless used on occasions, in which case at least rename to something like {{tl|arbcase-balkans}}. As for {{tl|uw-unsourced4im}}, redirects are cheap and leaving it alone would serve as a reminder that the progression of uw-unsourced* already jumped to {{tl|uw-generic4}} (as per [[WP:UTM]]). [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
What is a good way to warn a user who makes a clearly inappropriate or disruptive XfD/PROD nomination, such as one without a valid reason for deletion? What about users who make disruptive comments at XfD that have nothing to do with the deletion policy? [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Death threats == |
|||
:@[[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]], here's my recommendation: start by writing [[User:Xenon54/Don't template the newbies|a manual message]]: explain why their edits are disruptive, ask them to stop. If it's a new editor, try to [[WP:3LA|avoid jargon]]. If disruptive edits continue – revert. Then [[Template:Uw-disruptive1]] becomes appropriate, since it presupposes that the edits were reverted. —[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Why does the death threat block message {{tl|uw-tblock}} say that it's a temporary block, while the legal threat block message {{tl|uw-lblock}} say it's indefinite? If you ask me, making a death threat is far more objectionable than making a legal threat, though both are uncalled for. Why would anyone who made death threats be allowed to return? - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 08:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::A manual message seems good. The issue I have with existing templates is that XfD nominations and comments shouldn't be reverted like other edits just for being unconstructive (like saying an article "fails GNG" when it obviously doesn't). XfD nominations can be closed as [[Wikipedia:Speedy keep|speedy keep]] if there's no deletion rationale or they're obviously disruptive, but that's not exactly reversion and doesn't apply to all frivolous nominations. [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A better question is why we even have that template. Death threats come up so infrequently, in the time it would take to look it up and copy and paste it you could just write out a quick block message. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056366">Mr.</font>]]''[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056625">'''Z-'''</font><font color="#054F66">man</font>]]</font>'' 09:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Question about which template == |
|||
What template should be used if a user adds in a prediction for future events? Like if someone adds "The 2008 World Series will be the Mets against the Red Sox"? This is mainly a problem on wrestling articles, where IPs will add in rumored matches or matches they want to see (or just making shit up for no reason). I normally give the Unreference warning, but should that still be given when you know the info is BS and won't have a source? '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User:TJ Spyke|<font color="Maroon">TJ</font>]] [[User talk:TJ Spyke|<font color="Maroon">Spyke</font>]]</span>''' 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps {{tl|Uw-hoax}} is the closest thing? [[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposing wording changes to a specific warning template == |
|||
Since it seems that all the talk pages for the various templates point here, is this then the place to discuss possible changes in wording to individual templates? If so, might I ask what the rationale is for that rather than discussing on talk pages for the specific templates? [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It was discussed briefly [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_8#Organizing_this_page|here]] and somewhere else I can't recall. The main reason the talk pages of individual templates all redirect here was because the discussions were too scattered and there were many cases of proposed changes and suggestions left unnoticed for months at a time so it was decided to centralize all disscussions about the uw-warnings to this talk page. --[[User:Hdt83|<font color="336611" ><b><i>Hdt<font color="blue" >83</font></i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="brown" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, I suppose there's some sense in that. I'll make a suggestion here in a bit. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Link to dispute resolution == |
|||
{{Resolved|1=looks like it's been added. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)}} |
|||
[[Template:uw-3rr]] might benefit from a link to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. The template advises users to discuss their dispute, which is a start. The advantage of linking to the dispute resolution page is that this page helps explain what to do if simple talk page discussion doesn't work (I find often users keep reverting because they find discussion isn't productive). The one con I can think of is that this warning is already rather long and adding a link would lengthen it. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Template:Uw-copyright]] == |
|||
This doesn't mention fair use. A little misleading, I think. [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]] ([[User talk:Rocket000|talk]]) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Change to {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} == |
|||
[[User:Angel David]] recently made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism1&diff=183090867&oldid=183046911 a change] to this template. The difference is that this version would explicitely identify the target's conduct as vandalism. I personally don't like this change as I think it is sufficient for the level one [[WP:AGF]] template to describe the conduct as unconstructive. If there is clear or blatant vandalism, you can always skip to the level two warning or go straight to {{tl|Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{tl|uw-bv}}. I like having a softer version available, and the change also deprecates the level 2 warning. Any other opinions on this?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree, that edit is not assuming good faith. Revert it. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I would also agree it should not say vandalism. Though I have wondered why need both test1 and vandalism1 when their usages are about the same. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056366">Mr.</font>]]''[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056625">'''Z-'''</font><font color="#054F66">man</font>]]</font>'' 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I use test1 if it's an inoffensive edit ("Josh is the coolest") and vandalism1 if it's more offensive ("Australians are a bunch of dumbass fuckheads"), but can still possibly be described as someone experimenting with whether they really can edit this thing.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I reverted it. Damn, I already placed this template a few times with that language and I was not intending to label a newbie as a "vandal". This template is supposed to AGF, so it should have polite language. If you want to label a user as a "vandal", then use level 2 or 3. That is the point of "levels". Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Should such a high use template be fully protected? A change for a few minutes could affect many uses. There really isn't much of a need for it (or similar templates) to be edited. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056366">Mr.</font>]]''[[User talk:Mr.Z-man|<font color="#056625">'''Z-'''</font><font color="#054F66">man</font>]]</font>'' 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think we need both vandalism1 and test1, if nothing else, for consistency. Say a new user goes to the help desk or uses {{tl|helpme}} and asks how do I deal with some edit and is referred to the chart and escalating warnings are explained (or simply makes it here themselves and figures it out). If they are addressing a series of vandalism edits, they should be presented with the commensurate escalating, consistently named series, each starting with vandalism, and not have to figure out that test1 is illogically followed by vandalism2. Course the chart could remain unchanged with a simple redirect from one to the other, but it still would leave an incongruity.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Seeing that there are even tools that automatically post these templates on user talk pages, they should all be fully and indefinitely protected to ensure that they are not changed without discussion. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I tend to agree. There are enough admins that keep an eye on these pages to sort any problems that arise, though I'm not entirely sure that ring fencing the warnings in their entirety will sit well with the community. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::It seems to me that since these "uw-" templates were all (or most) created by a collaboration and all heavily scrutinized before they were implemented, any changes should be discussed first so that other templates can be updated accordingly to maintain strict consistency. Therefore, they (at least the ones using the "levels" structure) should be fully protected - thereby guaranteeing discussion. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Leave it here for a couple more days, then village pump the issue. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Though in saying leave it here, it would be good if alot of other editors who have had a long involvement in these templates give their thoughts (even if it is just support) as well, as a starting point before going to VP <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Regardless of the decision on the actual templates, I believe the shortcuts ({{t1|uw-v1}}, etc.) for all of these should be fully protected. Thoughts on the redirects?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Agreed. I can't think of any good reason not to protect the redirects. Incidentally, I also agree with fully protecting the most used templates. At a minimum, there should be a notice suggesting discussion before making any substantive changes.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{done}} I've fully protected the common uw redirects. In some sense, these were probably at greater risk, as I doubt very many of us had them on our watchlists.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Other templates section == |
|||
In the "Other" section, the link that says "Click here to show messages" is redirecting to the same page as for the single level templates section, which makes me wonder what that link is for. Isn't there a page anywhere showing all the templates from the "Other" section that it could link to? • [[User:Anakin101|Anakin]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Anakin101|contribs]] • [[User_talk:Anakin101|complaints]])</sup> 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I noticed that, too. The history tab shows it was redirected in November - I do not know any of the back history on that. Anyway, I think all of those pages are in dire need of being reorganized pretty soon. I have been cleaning up the main page here and there and put these subpages on my to-do list, but I might not get to it for months.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Template for misuse of procedures == |
|||
Is there a warning template for users who are misusing Wikipedia procedures? In the example I'm looking at, a user has nominated an obviously valid article for deletion. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:These templates are only for common garden problems that we see almost every day, and are no substitute for a good ol' personal message. In your case it depends on the reasoning for the AFD, but common problems would be [[WP:POINT]] or [[WP:CENSOR]]. Ask an admin for a speedy keep at [[WP:ANI]], and if the editor persists without good reasoning then blocks would be issued for disruptive editing. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}} == |
|||
Is there any real need for such a warning? That "only" word is way too strong: IMO, it implies you'll never get another; and it certainly can't (this is still IMO) be used if there already are some warnings on the page! Even "If you see a vandal with a long history" (as said [[User talk:Sandycx|here]], and i assumed it meant a long history of unwarned vandal ''edits''), i'd go for vandal3 instead... Or if that long history was already warned (as seen [[User talk:70.109.217.17|here]]), vandal4 would be just fine. Perhaps a modified v4im, that said "your ''newest'' disruptive edits" or "your ''recent'' disruptive edits"... Other thoughts? -- [[User:Jokes Free4Me|Jokes Free4Me]] ([[User talk:Jokes Free4Me|talk]]) 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes there is, as it is the only warning the editor will receive. This warning should not be used on first time vandals or editors with a mixed history of vandalism and good edits, but usually on persistent IP's, with a number of blocks to their names, where the editing trend suggests there is a <u>very</u> high chance the next edit will be vandalism. This is the set of warnings were AGF can only go so far, and we have to face facts that if a school IP only has vandalism edits to it's name, once a block has expired, we tell them again of the consequences and go for a longer block next time if the warning is ignored. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Khukri. I have seldom used that warning, but I have used it when an account has had a long string of vandalism that was clearly intentional, but no recent warnings. If they were blocked 3 months ago and have vandalized regularly for the last 2 months without getting a warning, there's no purpose in starting them off with a level 2 warning... --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Same here. I use it in cases where {{t1|uw-bv}} doesn't apply, I don't want to block them immediately (e.g., their last block expired a few months back, but they still have an extensive history of vandalism and blocks), or they've done a ''lot'' of vandalism yet haven't been warned yet. My only problem with people using {{t1|uw-vandalism4im}} is that they use it instead of {{t1|uw-vandalism1}} or {{t1|uw-vandalism2}} thinking that when they report to [[WP:AIV]] we'll treat it as a final warning, which is likely not going to be the case except in cases of sockpuppetry or something extraordinary. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Incorporating layout into template coding == |
|||
There is a suggested manner on the main page in which to apply these warnings to user talk pages: |
|||
===March 2007=== |
|||
# warning |
|||
# warning |
|||
* block |
|||
# warning |
|||
So, if this is the recommended usage, should it be incorporated into the templates themselves? This would include adding a "#" at the beginning of each template and a header function (which would need coding to handle different situations - can be discussed later). Are there any drawbacks to this? Thoughts?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I would oppose this. Trying to correctly use code to insert headers in certain cases would be more trouble than just typing "===January 2008===" when needed. As for the "#", last I heard that was put on the page because someone thought it might attract more use there, since few were using it before. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes; numbering breaks if someone (or an automated script) skips a line: |
|||
:# one |
|||
:# two |
|||
:# three. |
|||
:Plus, some of the antivandal bots that autowarn might need to be notified of the change. In all reality, we should probably just update the page to remove the whole numbering idea, because most admins (from what I would guess) and other editors don't pay attention to the sheer number of warnings but more to the the time they were left, the time between them, and what they're for. Morever, because the warnings all have icons on them, they are easy to count visually (without worrying about spacing/parsing/etc). --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with the icon visual. If the layout suggestion is removed from the page (which then it probably should be), the heading suggestion should definitely be left intact. With that being said, since some users remove warnings from their page (as they are free to do so), I would recommend some type of standardized edit summary be suggested on the page so warning can easily be seen in the history. Maybe "WARN #1" or something, in caps. I don't know.... Thoughts?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with the above in that rearranging the warnings and actually typing in the code for the warnings takes up more time. Also, tools and anti-vandal bots would have to be reprogrammed to follow this format. I say that we should get rid of this layout since the icons should be sufficient enough to tell what level warning the vandal is on. --[[User:Hdt83|<font color="336611" ><b><i>Hdt<font color="blue" >83</font></i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="brown" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== How to conteract warnings being removed == |
|||
Increasingly I am seeing instances of vandals removing warnings from talk pages. One way of reducing the effect of this, which I am doing, is to paste the warning template code into the Edit Summary as well. This makes it easy for an admin looking at the history to see the type and nature of the warnings, even if no warnings appear on the current version of the page. Should such a request be added to the project page and promoted ? Cheers -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">([[User:Daytona2|Daytona2]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Daytona2|Talk]]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[Special:Contributions/Daytona2|Contribs]])</span> 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[WP:UTM]] page does suggest you, "give the level of the template you have used (and preferably the name: for example, "error3", "v2", "d1") in your edit summary". I think most admins are in the habit of checking the talk page history for warnings, though it definitely makes life easier if descriptive summaries are used.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Whenever I block, I always look at the talk page history ''first'' to make sure all of the warnings were properly issued. You pretty much have to since [[WP:USER]] was updated to state that editors may remove at will any messages on their own talk page. That said, as a blocking admin, I certainly appreciate it whenever an editor also includes the warning in their edit summary (personally I put the generic warning in the summary, such as {{tl|uw-error3}} or {{tl|uw-tpv4}}). --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== uw-hblock == |
|||
I took the liberty of creating {{t1|uw-hblock}}, partially because I'm too lazy to keep pasting my block reason into {{t1|uw-block1}} (et al). Plus, I figure it's useful shorthand for other admins as well. Anyway, cheers =) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:There probably is some discussion of which I am unaware, but why does the reason need to be stated on the template? The reason is usually listed in the blocklog anyway. I would point to [[WP:BEANS]] and [[WP:NOSPADE]] as reasons. I am not an admin so I do not add those templates, but I ''see'' them. If I am a vandal and I see a cohort with a block for doing such-and-such, then maybe I would do that because it is a sure way to get blocked. See a related [[Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_8#.7B.7BUw-tblock.7D.7D|archived thread]] regarding death threats. I guess I am just playing devil's advocate, but it seems to be a legitimate pondering. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Honestly I've never made a death threat block, so I definitely agree with you on that, but I've made multiple harassment blocks (usually to socks and obvious trolls), so it's less of a block message for the people using socks and trolling, as it is more for the people who might be accidentally affected by the block and for other visitors coming to the talk page to warn the user (despite him/her already being blocked). --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Just semantics, but how does one attempt to harass another user, either they are or they aren't? <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Bad practice? == |
|||
To me the wording the wording "bad practice" in "deleting or editing legitimate comments ... is considered [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|bad practice]]", used in [[:Template:uw-tpv1]], comes across as almost a joke. Any reasons to not replace that by "... is considered [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|unacceptable]]"? --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:That's a level 1 warning, so the wording seems appropriately gentle. (Just my 2 cents...) --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:39, 18 May 2024
|
Archives
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
your account has been used for advertising or promotion -> it has been used for advertising or promotion
Minor nitpick to reduce repetition. Mori Calliope fan talk 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be a side effect of the changes made by Jpgordon in Special:Diff/1162488493. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- Good nitpick, fixed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024
Please fix Template:Uw-mislead3, it expands with a <!-- Template:uw-move3 --> comment instead of <!-- Template:uw-mislead3 -->.
I just had this shocking moment where I warned someone with a level 4 move disruption warning because I copied it and thought 'oh no, I warned them for move disruption in the third warning too, how did I not see it' - but no, turns out it's just the comment that's been wrong since the template was made. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion: Merge templates for removing XFD notices
Proposal: Merge AFD, RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD and MFD user warning templates into one. This would let editors use a centralized warnings list for deletion in general instead of having to go and carefully find the one for the appropriate XFD. If needed, we could add a parameter to disambiguate which.
Here's what the templates might look like:
Uw-xfd1: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
Uw-xfd2: Please do not remove deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Uw-xfd3: Please stop. If you continue to remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing.
Uw-xfd4: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a deletion notice or a comment from a deletion debate.
Uw-xfd4im: This is your only warning; if you remove a deletion notice from a page or delete comments from a deletion debate again, you may be blocked from editing.
Any suggestions welcome! If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Link the plain and simple COI guide?
A lot of newcomers on Wikipedia might not be familiar with all of our policies and feel lost in the wordings, maybe it would be good to link a more beginner-friendly guide such as Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide in {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-coi-username}} to gently nudge them towards more responsible editing? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Vector legacy
The template currently says: "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you)." This seems to apply to the Vector Legacy skin, but not the current Vector 2022 skin. I think there are now two places "Move" can be: the Tools sidebar, or Tools menu, but I don't know which one appears by default. Depending on this, please can the template be reworded, maybe to something like:
- "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" action in the "Tools" menu at the top of the page (the "Tools" menu may be in a sidebar to the right of the page for you)."
or
- "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" action in the "Tools" sidebar to the right of the page (the "Tools" sidebar may be hidden as a menu at the top of the page for you)."
Might also need a sentence there saying something like "if you're using the Vector legacy skin, there should be a "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu)." (Is there a way to automatically detect which skin the user is using, and display text appropriate to that? This might be more difficult if this template has to be subst'ed.)
Updating Help:Moving a page, and a replacement for File:Vector hidden move button.png would be nice to have, but probably not worth waiting for to make this change.
Alternatively, is there a way to flag this up to the WMF team who implemented these changes to clean up? --YodinT 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Templates warning against frivolous XfD/PROD nominations and comments?
What is a good way to warn a user who makes a clearly inappropriate or disruptive XfD/PROD nomination, such as one without a valid reason for deletion? What about users who make disruptive comments at XfD that have nothing to do with the deletion policy? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Helpful Raccoon, here's my recommendation: start by writing a manual message: explain why their edits are disruptive, ask them to stop. If it's a new editor, try to avoid jargon. If disruptive edits continue – revert. Then Template:Uw-disruptive1 becomes appropriate, since it presupposes that the edits were reverted. —andrybak (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- A manual message seems good. The issue I have with existing templates is that XfD nominations and comments shouldn't be reverted like other edits just for being unconstructive (like saying an article "fails GNG" when it obviously doesn't). XfD nominations can be closed as speedy keep if there's no deletion rationale or they're obviously disruptive, but that's not exactly reversion and doesn't apply to all frivolous nominations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)