Could you change the image to: , in case it is the first time a user has been warned with the template? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is this a notice or a warning? casualdejekyll 21:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm aware it's categorized as a warning. But should it be a notice, or a warning? That's the question I should have asked oops casualdejekyll 21:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll: Someone may have done what the warning tells not to do for the first time. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last 15 days, I came across two cases wherein the user has used their talk page to create drafts, one was a G11 (unambiguous self-promotion) candidate, and thus deleted with a deletion notice. But today, I see a (probably) genuine effort to create a draft article. There should be a template, that tells the user that user talk pages are only for communication, and that drafts are created in draft namespace or as subpage of the User page. There should also be a link to the destination page, where the draft has been moved to. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard cases make bad law". For these two cases of misuse and abuse, I can think of many more where editors are positively invited to put on the article talk page a draft of some text that they believe needs to be added or replaced in the article. This is often part of a BRD discussion and so is a Good Thing. So, in your second case, it would be less effort all round for you to write a friendly note to the editor to tell them about their sandbox. Uw- templates are for the "here we go again, not another one" cases where you can't bear to write that friendly note yet again. Let's not clog the list of uw templates with such 'rarely used' cases. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just post a personal note directing them to their sandbox, (with link) and then on to AfC (with link) when they think their article is ready? Between those two, and perhaps links to the help desk and teahouse, that should be more than sufficient guidance. (imho) - wolf 16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(oop. Just noticed JMF suggested basically the same thing above, just after I posted. - wolf 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Please add Template:uw-pablock, Template:uw-adminublock, Template:uw-adminuhblock, Template:uw-botuhblock and Template:uw-ublock-nonsense to the table at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.

Consider creating Template:uw-uhblock-nonsense as well. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done See diff. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{uw-talkinarticle}}/1/2/3 ... is there the equivalent for other namespaces where discussions do not occur on the subjectpage? (ie. filespace, categoryspace, portalspace, modulespace, mediawikispace, most of templatespace) ... discussions seem to occur on subjectpages only in WPspace and DRAFTspace, and templatespace holding pages for nominations (not regular templates). -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I personally see no reason why there shouldn't be a more generalized {{uw-talkinpage}} series... hmm casualdejekyll 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? In what conceivable circumstances would it be appropriate to direct a template warning at an editor familiar enough with the project to be doing anything in those spaces? Please give yourselves a UW-timewasting warning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this when the notalk parameter of this template is switched on, much of the instructions about the policy are missing, including the three bullet points. Should we do something about it? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Your addition to edit your talk page" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page" in templates Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock and Template:uw-spamublock.

Also, any comment about the spamublock issue in the section above? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done that phrase does not appear on this template. Please view the source text. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the text under the notalk parameter. "Your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked" 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout i meant "your ability to edit your talk page" 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: check again for "Your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked". Also, any comment about this? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those still seem to be missing, please create and update the appropriate sandboxes, when done link to the updated sandboxes and reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sandboxes have already been edited, and I know I'll screw something up if I try to revert it 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: carry this change over to Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock, Template:SockBlock and Template:uw-spamublock. (text is only visible when notalk parameter is set) 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The "also" later in that sentence clarifies that this is a different action, it is probably best to be concise with these templates and you should gather consensus for this change as it doesn't add anything substantive and just extends the length of the text. Terasail^[✉️] 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]