Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
→‎uw-subtle3: new section
Line 71: Line 71:
== uw-subtle3 ==
== uw-subtle3 ==


I have created a level 3 template for subtle vandalism. 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC) [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to change information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at [[:Article]], your edits will be considered [[WP:VD|vandalism]] and you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 -->
I have created a level 3 template for subtle vandalism. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to change information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at [[:Article]], your edits will be considered [[WP:VD|vandalism]] and you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 -->

Revision as of 19:34, 12 August 2018

Template:Archive box collapsible

Fringe sources

This is not an edit request yet. After doing this revert I had a hard time to determine what template to use among WP:WARN2. I could have used uw-pov (no mention that the source is unsuitable), uw-blog (but that's mostly for bios), uw-vandal (still not ideal), uw-advert, uw-unsourced (there was a source, but a fringe one)... I ended up using uw-error1 because it asks to cite a reliable source. I guess that I'd have to use vandal2 if needing escalation. It's possible that a new set particularily for fringe, or for unreliable sources in particular, be a good idea. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 08:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a separate 'the source you cited is unreliable' set of user warnings is needed for cases like this. --Danski454 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can a user warning really practically cover all the common cases that make sources unreliable? There are a lot of them. It probably makes more sense to leave a hand-typed note on the person's talk page explaining why the particular source they chose is unreliable. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-afcaddition vs. Uw-draftmoved

What is the functional difference between {{Uw-draftmoved}} from 2015 that WP:DRAFTIFY makes use of, and {{Uw-afcaddition}} from 2016? Courtesy ping (AnarchyteMr. Stradivarius), Sam Sailor 07:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: {{Uw-draftmoved}} is to tell someone who submitted their draft with an AfC tag in the wrong namespace that it has been moved to "Draft:Name". {{uw-afcaddition}} is to tell users that their draft has been added to the AfC procedure by someone else as they believe it'd help them (new users making their first articles, etc). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! Sam Sailor 07:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: I've had a look at the nine instances I could find of Uw-afcaddition insource. All those drafts are now redlinked. Could you clarify when Uw-afcaddition is used? Is it when you find a draft in ns:118 that is missing {{AFC submission}} and you add it with appropriate |ts= and |u= or what? Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: Not sure what "ns:118" means. The template is used when a draft made by someone else (usually a new user) has {{AFC submission/draft}} added to it by someone other than the creator, if that makes sense. When I used to use it, I added it after an unfinished article made by a really new user had been moved from mainspace to draftspace when I it's best that they receive feedback. You can see the original discussion here. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte:Thanks for the clarification, I did read the 2016 discussion. Ns:118 = draft space. So, Uw-afcaddition is the ut notification after you have manually done what User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js does semi-automatically, is that correct? Sam Sailor 08:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: Yes. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sam Sailor 08:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Right, but ... then we have {{Uw-articletodraft}}, and that sounds like the one to use when moving an undersourced article to draft space and manually leaving the new editor a notification. Which means {{uw-afcaddition}} is for drafts in draft space where you add {{subst:AFC draft|username of new editor}} on behalf of the new editor or you fix a subst:submit error by addition of {{subst:submit|username to submit as}} and then you notify them with {{uw-afcaddition}}, right? Sam Sailor 16:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Yup, I believe so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather strange Draft UW template at AFC

I have just declined Draft:Template:Uw-under13 as there is no indication that such a template is wanted. The message (bizarrely imho) talk of reverting edits simply because the contributor is thought to be younger than 13 years. AFAIK WP has never had an age restriction for editors. If such a template were to be seriously suggested I would be inclined to strongly oppose its creation. If it were actually used it might well violate WP:OUTING and in fact lead to exactly the problems that WP:YOUNG warn about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating Uw-patrolled

Template:Uw-patrolled is a template from before the new pages reviewer user right, which prevents new editors from marking pages as patrolled. I would recommend that we remove this template from the project or reword it to advise users to apply for the right at WP:PERM (the former being preferred). --Danski454 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uw-subtle3

I have created a level 3 template for subtle vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Article, your edits will be considered vandalism and you may be blocked from editing.

Leave a Reply