Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader|WT:UTM|WT:UW|wp=yes|noarchives=yes}}
{{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}}
{{Info|''To centralize discussion, all [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:uw-|uw-* template]] talk pages and UW project talk pages, redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the UW-* templates, please be sure to identify which one. If you have a query, refer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings|WikiProject User warnings]] main page for more information.''}}
{{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}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 13
|counter = 20
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
}}{{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|
{{archive box collapsible|index=/Archive index|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=21|
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2005/01|WP:UW Archives 1]]
#[[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/2006/01|WP:UW Archives 2]]
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2007/01|WP:UW Archives 3]]
#[[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 1|WP:UW Archives 4]]
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 2|WP:UW Archives 5]]
#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 2|WP:UW Archives 5]]
*WP:UW merged into [[WP:UTM]]
*WP:UW merged into [[WP:UTM]]
:WP:UTM archives
:WP:UTM archives
#[[/Archive 1|April 2005 – April 2006]]
#[[/Archive 1|April 2005–April 2006]]
#[[/Archive 2|April 2006 – October 2006]]
#[[/Archive 2|April 2006–October 2006]]
#[[/Archive 3|October 2006 – January 2007]]
#[[/Archive 3|October 2006–January 2007]]
#[[/Archive 4|January 2007 – February 2007]]
#[[/Archive 4|January 2007–February 2007]]
#[[/Archive 5|February 2007]]
#[[/Archive 5|February 2007]]
#[[/Archive 6|February 2007 – March 2007]]
#[[/Archive 6|February 2007–March 2007]]
#[[/Archive 7|March 2007 – September 2007]]
#[[/Archive 7|March 2007–September 2007]]
#[[/Archive 8|September 2007 – May 2008]]
#[[/Archive 8|September 2007–May 2008]]
#[[/Archive 9|April 2008 – June 2009]]
#[[/Archive 9|April 2008–June 2009]]
#[[/Archive 10|June 2009 – May 2010]]
#[[/Archive 10|June 2009–May 2010]]
#[[/Archive 11|May 2010 – February 2011]]
#[[/Archive 11|May 2010–February 2011]]
#[[/Archive 12|February 2011 – September 2013]]
#[[/Archive 12|February 2011–September 2013]]
#[[/Archive 13|October 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__
__TOC__
{{clear}}
{{clear}}


== [[Template:uw-spamublock]] ==
== "If...you may..." needs to be "If...you might..." (because of its conditional clause). ==

{{edit template-protected|template:uw-spamublock|answered=yes}}
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)

: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)
::Good nitpick, fixed. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107;]]</small></sup> 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Template:Uw-mislead3|answered=yes}}
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. &ndash; [[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 ==

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:<br>
As for all templates, I have noticed that all templates of levels 3 and 5 use a conditional clause which says "If you [do this again], you may be blocked from editing.". I feel that it is incorrect because these sentences are conditional, so we need to use the past tense form of ''might'' instead, rather than ''may''. This in a conditional clause "would" (not ''will'') actually be more correct ''if'' we had done that upon agreeing this. [[User:Gamingforfun365|Gamingforfun365]] ([[User talk:Gamingforfun365|talk]]) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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>
:This is similar to legal language where possible (but not guaranteed) penalties are set. E.g. <i>"Persons who commit the crime of XYZ </i><b>may</b><i> be imprisoned for a term not to exceed..."</i> etc. A quick online search of several dictionaries each indicate that the word "may" is sometimes used to indicate possibility, and the word "might" is given as a synonym for this usage. In other words, I'm not sure this is needed, but I'm neutral to the idea. <span style="background:#1e1e1e;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;"> <b> [[User:Etamni|<span style="color:#ceff00;">&nbsp;Etamni&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;</span>]][[User Talk:Etamni|<span style="color:#ceff00;">&#9993;&nbsp;</span>]]</b></span> 06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
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>
::Agreed with Etamni. Neither usage is wrong, and there are other contextually synonymous constructions ("might be", "could be", etc.). I oppose changing this, because "may" is the most concise possible way to say it, and it's adequate. There is nothing ambiguous about the construction (though there can be for some other uses of "may": "You may laugh" means both "it is permissible for you to laugh" and "you could end up laughing"). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
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>
:::''Might'' is the past tense of ''may'', and it can also be used conditionally, but, if both of you be neutral about it, I might as well just do it to see what happens. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 05:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
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)


== Block messages for anon editors ==
== 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 {{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)
Please see [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Ambiguous_phrasing]]. Why are we encouraging blocked editors to essentially sock? Example: "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit" --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


== Vector legacy ==
*Agreed. That message directly contradicts our blocking policy, which has always been understood to mean that the block is on the person behind the edits, regardless of what identity they use. This needs to be rectified. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
*Also agree, we should reword the template when the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
*:To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a [[WP:HARDBLOCK|hard block]] ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like ''"If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in"''. Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see <nowiki>{{ uw-ublock }}</nowiki> on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
::Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, [[User:NeilN|NeilN]], I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Liz}} The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§[[User:FreeRangeFrog|<span style="color:#00CA00">FreeRangeFrog</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:FreeRangeFrog|croak]]</sup> 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Agreed''' I came here explicitly because of {{tlx|uw-ewblock}} and was surprised to find that language being used: it's basically a welcome mat to sock and isn't at all reflective of the various flags being used in blocking scenarios. Templates used for anon blocks where the implication is that the user can freely edit if they have an account can be counted on one hand (e.g., {{tlx|schoolblock}}, {{tlx|anonblock}}, and in rare instances {{tlx|uw-vblock}}). While it's true most of our blocks of IPs are anon-only by default, we typically don't explicitly advertise the fact. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*:It's still unclear to me what we're trying to change. When you say "we don't typically advertise" that it's anon-only, I'm lead to believe that that's simply because the old Twinkle Warn module didn't use the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter. When I built the Twinkle block module, I passed in this param to the block templates for anon-only blocks, as it appears that is how the templates were designed and intended to be used. Obviously, it was not well thought out that the ''If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit'' wording could have an adverse effect. So the question remains, are we okay with just removing that bit and keeping the "Anonymous users have been blocked" (as opposed to "You have been blocked")? <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 16:22, 29 July 2015 (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:
*Can we get this fixed? I've had to go back and modify two block notices int he last few hours because it was still telling them to go ahead and evade the block if they had a named account. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
* "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)."
*What it really should be saying is that if this is collateral damage, that is if the user is not the person blocked, but now has the IP because it is dynamic, '''then''' that person could and should log in and thus avoid an improper block. But I'm not sure how that should be worded concisely yet learly enoguh for a uw message. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
or
*{{yo|Beeblebrox|DESiegel|NeilN|Liz|Slakr}} I'm going to bring back up my proposal, which you can view at [[:Template:uw-block/sandbox]]. Feel free to modify. I think the idea is that for soft blocks, state that only anonymous users are affected, but that uninvolved editors can still edit using a registered account. This proposed modification I think addresses these concerns, and is inline with our friendly suite of warning messages that have a similar fine print message below them. If we are happy with this I can sit down and spend a painstaking 15-20 minutes deciphering the parser functions of {{tl|uw-block}} to get rid of that now unneeded if-else statement for the anon-only copy. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
* "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)."
::That's certainly better than what we have now. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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.)
:::It looks good to me. The net change is "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] and continue to edit." → "If this is [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]." The new phrasing can be included inside the block message or appended in italics below as [[Template:uw-block/sandbox|MusikAnimal did]]. I have coded a revised version of the template for both cases and will replace the current template upon request. &mdash;&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:EmailUser/JJMC89|E]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::{{yo|JJMC89}} If you are able to get this implemented that'd be great. I see looking at the code there's an if-else check on whether to show the copy "Otherwise, once the block has expired...". We can remove that if-else and just keep the else part, which checks for an indef param and if not preset will show "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to...". Too many curly braces and brackets, it makes my head spin! You said you have this implemented somewhere, perhaps in your userspace? We should do some thorough testing before updating {{tl|uw-block}}. Thanks! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{Reply to|MusikAnimal}} I coded it off wiki. I can replace the sandbox with a coded version this evening (EDT). Do you want the new version to keep all the text in the block message or place it below like in your version? Also, should {{param|legal}} suppress the new text? Currently {{tl|uw-lblock}} uses it to suppress the parts of the message, including the "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] and continue to edit." part. &mdash;&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:EmailUser/JJMC89|E]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::I say let's put the new message below the template like in my example, but again only when {{param|anon}} is set. We should retain all other existing functionality, so if the {{tl|uw-lblock}} template wants to hide that message than I think we should too. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 18:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::: [[Template:uw-block/sandbox]] has been updated to a working template for testing. &mdash;&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:EmailUser/JJMC89|E]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Going to test this out with Twinkle tonight (EDT). Thanks {{u|JJMC89}}! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{yo|JJMC89}} Little late getting to this, but I tried out various scenarios on [[testwiki:User_talk:192.0.2.1|testwiki]] and it looks OK! Would you like to do the honours? <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
* {{Yo|MusikAnimal|Beeblebrox|DESiegel|NeilN|Liz|Slakr}} {{Tl|uw-block}} has been updated with the revised language. &mdash;&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:EmailUser/JJMC89|E]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


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.
== Plagiarism can also be copyright infringement in a way. ==


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)
As for [[Template:Uw-copyright]], what if I have said "possibly plagiarized"? Would that be better? Also, the reason why I did that was because I have argued that it would be plagiarism if one were to treat another's work as if one's own by using it over and over despite giving credit to another, which makes it sound as if one were just using it as an "excuse" of doing so and not really being honest about giving such credit, stealing his work therefore. That is my point of view, and that is why I have done it. Is there something which I need to know? [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 05:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I know that material does not have to be copyrighted in order to be plagiarized. I am sorry for having sounded ambiguous, but I was refering to the copyrighted for the whole time. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
:No, because that makes the sentence factually incorrect. Currently it reads
::For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.
:and you attempted to change it to
::For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept [[WP:Plagiarism|plagiarized]] material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.
:In general there is no legal bar to our using plagiarized material, since material can be plagiarized from sources which are in the public domain or released under free content licences which do not require attribution. And conversely, it is possible to properly credit the source of text or images (thus avoiding plagiarism) while still violating copyright.
:The problem this template addresses is copyright violation and not plagiarism. Please do not conflate the two. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed, {{u|Psychonaut}}: copyright infringement is a legal problem, plagiarism is not, and they shouldn't be confused. Both are against policy here. Just to clarify, although some free sources may not themselves require attribution, using content from them in Wikipedia always does: [[Wikipedia:Public domain|"Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies."]]
::It would be good to have a different, separate user warning template for plagiarism too (unless we already do?). [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure about that. How often do you encounter users plagiarizing public-domain or CC-0-licensed material? I've been monitoring copyright problems here for about ten years and can't recall discovering a single instance where that's happened. If I'm wrong and this is a demonstrably common problem, by all means create a template; otherwise we can do without the clutter. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 09:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Then, I am probably just delusional. I still stick to my old statement delusionally, but forget it. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I am sorry for being a vandal just for adhering to my point of view, and I have always known that plagiarism is not as bad/illegal as copyright infringement. I just unintentionally vandalized by still currently accusing my original statement of being true. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 05:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I only accused it of being plagiarism not because both it and copyright infringement had been synonymous, but because authors do not ''really'' give credit to works' true authors because they treat them as if they were their own, thus lying about really giving such credit and therefore plagiarizing, but I apologize for vandalizing Wikipedia. [[User:Gamingforfun365|<span style="color:yellow"><s><span style="color:#541854">Gamingforfun</span></s></span><sup><u><span style="color:red">3</span><span style="color:green">6</span><span style="color:blue">5</span></u></sup>]] [[User talk:Gamingforfun365|(talk)]] 06:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Gamingforfun365, you haven't vandalized anything as far as I can see. You just made a good-faith attempt to improve the project, and it turned out that your contributions were deemed unnecessary by the community. It happens all the time here; it's how we work. Nobody's upset, and I hope this experience doesn't dissuade you from sticking around. Just take it as a learning experience. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 07:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Template:Uw-cyberbully|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 §&nbsp;Template:Uw-cyberbully]]==
== Tweaking uw-coi ==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;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 §&nbsp;Template:Uw-cyberbully]]. &#x0020;All the best, <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;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? ==
The disclosure sentence currently reads like this
* Note that Wikipedia's [[wmf:Terms of Use|terms of use]] '''require disclosure''' of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
I am sometimes asked how to disclose, either because the editor skimmed over the TOU and missed the disclosure part or they are focused on the bolded text and did not read the TOU at all. I'd like to copy the Paid contributions without disclosure section of the TOU to an en-wiki page and link '''requires disclosure''' to that. Thoughts? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::There is already [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure]]. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Made the change. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-coi&diff=prev&oldid=677796299] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Nice. I've encountered similar situations, where none of us knew WP:PCD existed. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:18, 25 August 2015 (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)
== Is uw-npa1 kinda creepy? ==


:@[[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)
Is it just me or does the current text of {{t|uw-npa1}} give off a really creepy cultish vibe? I realise it's trying for "friendly and helpful" (but then so do hegemonizing cults!), but at least to me it just comes across as creepy. Possibly that's because it ''is'' a warning, but it's trying to hide behind happy friendly language, so it gives the overall effect of a drone programmed to be friendly and polite so it can murder you in your sleep. It's not even "the iron fist in the silk glove"; it's "Norman Bates moves to Stepford"!{{br}}No? Just me? Ok then. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (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)

Revision as of 17:39, 18 May 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Good nitpick, fixed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Leave a Reply