Template:Archive box collapsible

1. I removed reference to trolling. When dealing with trolls, avoid the T-word. That just gets them excited and encourages more trolling.
2. The phrase "nor...ever tolerated" is untrue. Regrettably, we tolerate a lot of disruptive behavior. I change it to "nor...ever allowed". Just because we let people get away with disruption for a while before blocking them doesn't mean that it is allowable.
3. The last sentence was rather convoluted and thus harder to read and understand. The key to these messages actually working is that they should be understandable and over-polite. So, "below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first" became "below this notice. For best results please read the guide to appealing blocks first." [1]

Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After removing a minor instance of vandalism by a new IP user, I left a message on his talk page using {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|article}}. I've done this many times before, but unusually this time I found it also triggered this alert notification to myself:

You mentioned yourself on 101.181.232.116 in "101.181.232.116". Hello, I'm Bahudhara. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ma .

This seems to be an unintended consequence of changes somewhere else. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, having used {{uw-delete1}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_notifications --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that references to Article in the documentation for {{uw-chat1}} etc should be to Talk:Article, eg:

What to type

What it makes

{{subst:uw-chat1|Talk:Article}}

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Article are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks.

This gives "... talk pages such as Talk:Article ...", which makes more sense than "... talk pages such as Article ...", because the latter does not link to a talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are others that should also have a similar change, for the same reason, eg:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates#Editing of others' talk page contributions without due cause
• Wikipedia:Template_messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates - uw-upv, uw-subst

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Template:Uw-1rr because I couldn't find a general template I could use with 1RR-restricted reversions. (I based it off of Template:Uw-3rr.) The thing is, I'm not sure I went about creating it the right way. Is there an official process for this kind of stuff? Does it need to be approved or anything like that? I've never created a template for Wikipedia before. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything technically wrong with your new template. But I am puzzled as to its proper use. It mentions:

while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule.

I don't recall ever encountering the WP:1RR rule. Even reading that guideline sheds little light. Then there is the much more mysterious WP:0RR (zero revert rule). Frankly, both of these smack of entrapment. Maybe you can explain the logic behind all of this? —EncMstr (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've started to develop some new form messages for new editors, that I hope will be more friendly and informal than the default Twinkle messages. They're listed on my user subpage. I'd be really keen to hear what people think about them and if they have any suggestions for improvements.

I'm not proposing to submit these as official templates (not for the foreseeable future, anyway), but I hope that some people might find them useful. Blythwood (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated elsewhere I like the tone of these messages, a more friendly way than the "official" templates of reaching out to the good-faith and reasonably literate new editors whom we want to encourage. I shall certainly be plagiarising them: Noyster (talk), 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]