Template:Archive box collapsible

Thinking of editing the templatesnotice usage at {{Bv}}(Blatant vandalism):

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = uw-v4im|s2 = uw-vand4im|s3 = uw-vandal4im}}

replacing the above with the following:

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = Bv|s2 = uw-v4im|s3 = uw-vand4im|s4 = uw-vandal4im}}

OTOH, this is heavily used and the current usage doesn't seem to follow the documentation so I thought I'd ask for feedback. These exist: {{Uw-vandalism0}} {{Uw-vandalism1}} {{Uw-vandalism2}} {{Uw-vandalism3}} {{Uw-vandalism4}}. So why not something like this?:

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = Bv|s2 = uw-vandalism0|s3 = uw-vandalism1|s4 = uw-vandal2|s5 = uw-vandalism3|s6 = uw-vandal4im}}

--Elvey (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Template:Uw-3rr, I have changed "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" to "Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing". In this sentence, "being" is a gerund, properly preceded by a possessive. Being, not you, is the object of the first part of the sentence. For examples and discussion of how this principle works, please see this link, this link, or this one. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interesting, but clearly we should simplify the language to prevent the current ping-ponging. Any suggestion of how we make:

• Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. more based on
• Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned or
• Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption ?

Also, it helps to say it's the {{Uw-3rr}} per the talk page banner and edit page notice (end of gripe). Widefox; talk 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "ping-ponging" you mention has been brought on by only two editors apparently unaware of the proper grammar. If the question comes up again this section of discussion can be referenced. Isn't it ironic that there should be a mini-edit war over a word in an edit war warning. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops, wrong paste...fixed...how about:

• Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing ? Widefox; talk 08:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or a combination of your first two examples: Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or banned from editing to prevent further disruption. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text "This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution." is rather contradictory: It is stating that you are breaking the law, yet that action is merely undesired. Can that be changed to "unacceptable" or "inappropriate" or something else to be a better choice of wording? Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the spam1 bot default, I feel like i should update it to match the bot warnings of the future, today!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, atleast one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.

• Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform foradvertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project.

• Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings.

• If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it.

Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Z88

Think this one is better. DDreth ask me questions! 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that we have multiple templates for users who talk on article pages. In addition to uw-talkinarticle found on the list, we also have the uw-cia series (1 2 3 4) of templates. The only reference I can find to these is a talk page archive from 2007. Shouldn't we decide on one or the other and delete what we don't decide on? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the following text or something similar to it be added somewhere in the template:

• Note that this is not an automated process. Administrators will review your request carefully, so please do not submit botched unblock requests, as they will be declined.

This is because some people simply don't seem to get it (I'd link an example, but I'm afraid that could be a personal attack). This is a suggestion, not a request. Ginsuloft (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way you described the problem, I think "frivolous", "inappropriate", "improper" or something would be better than "botched", because "botched" sounds like messing the template syntax up more than it does a bad reason. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, frivolous is what I meant and I agree with you. Spammers often submit requests that are doomed to be declined because they don't even counter the reason the block was issued, often repeatedly. It's always the spammers who do this, never vandals. This is just a guess but it may be sort of a learned helplessness they have acquired from spamming other sites, hoping that a bored/tired admin will just randomly accept their request so they can continue spamming. While this may be the case on some other sites, on Wikipedia it is obviously not possible because admins are selected by consensus and everyone can see your history and ask about any action you've done. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the slightest way to go about requesting it, so I'm posting here. Is there a way to add an automated signature to the template for alerting people of a conflict of interest? The template in question is: {{subst:Uw-coi}}. It would just be fairly handy to have it automatically sign for you when posting it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't know if this is exactly what you meant, but I added a parameter sig=yes similar to Template:Uw-block. It only works when the template is substituted and the word "yes" can be replaced with any word, even "no", but "yes" is recommended for clarity. Ginsuloft (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered was a talk page template for users who are being WP:POINTy, and although {{uw-point}} exists, it takes the odd standpoint of "your recent edit to the user page of another user could give an editor the impression that you are forcing your own point", which isn't really what WP:POINT is about. From the edit history it was created last July by a user "creating my first template", and has had no other edits since. Is it worth bringing this in line with WP:POINT? --McGeddon (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the template to be more in line with WP:POINT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a template for linking words in article body to external URLs instead of to other Wikipedia articles. I run into this frequently with new editors, and it is a violation of WP:ELPOINTS, which says that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-canvass}} reads: "It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages [...]". I would say it is not the contacted users that are biased, they are likely to simply have an opinion which is perfectly legitimate; but that it is the chosen set of users that is biased. In other words, the choice is biased (the contacting editor), not the users (the contacted editors). I changed it accordingly, but please improve, if possible. - Nabla (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out template:uw-unwelcome. No words should be minced in excoriating racist trolls and similar malefactors. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting us to this, I'll be nominating it for deletion in a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's pretty silly. It seems much more likely to feed them than frighten them. You'd be better off using the standard {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning or something similar. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah – I'm afraid that, while evil and malicious could pass as reasonable inferences from behavior, "malodorous" is just WP:NPA. No way to know that over the 'net (yet) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 22. And David, this is the second time in a few days I have seen you do something aimed at "evil," the other being your attempt to ban all usernames that even theoretically contain a reference to Satan. You might want to rethink your approach to such issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]