Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Discussion at Template talk:Db-notice § Testing for page existence to remove "or" statements

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Db-notice § Testing for page existence to remove "or" statements. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Template:Uw-defamatory1

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Template:Uw-defamatory1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate message

The template Template:Uw-login claims "Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting"

This is a gross simplification. Nowhere at WP:SOCKPUPPET is editing while logged out prohibited.

What is "improper" when it comes to multiple accounts is to use them wrong (using them to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt).

If you're at a public computer and want to make a quick edit, nobody forces you to log in first. If that edit is unproblematic, your use of multiple accounts is unproblematic.

The language at WP:SOCKPUPPET can at first blush appear to be clear cut, such as its "in a nutshell" stating "one editor, one account." The language from the nutshell is never repeated by the actual policy language! In actuality, the policy consists of a long list of things not to do. Most of things are things you should not do regardless how how many or few accounts are involved, or in other words, it doesn't really have anything to say on using multiple accounts.

Take the following paragraph as a good example. At first sight, it appears to be strongly saying editing while logged-out is forbidden:

Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.

But read the language carefully. When an editor "should" do something, that's a recommendation, not an order. Even innocuous activities might in some cases (my emphasis) be treated as sockuppetry. That "innocous intentions" won't serve as an excuse refers to those cases where the activities are treated as sockpuppetry.

Of course, the real story is that usage of multiple accounts is an indicator of sockpuppetry - one among many. But in of itself it isn't prohibited. You need to do something bad or suspicious for your multiple account usage to land you in hot water.

Please rephrase the template. I realize its usage is to gently warn off people that already lie in the danger zone of sockpuppetry, but nothing about the template itself indicates this. As written, it is a template an editor could conceivably use against any use of multiple accounts, such as the very common "not bothering to log in to do this edit from a new computer". And that usage is mostly irritating.

I would like to see the template be less passive-agressive. Be more specific! "Since your logged-out edits are a bit suss, could you log in please?" or something that tells our fellow editors when using it is appropriate.

When the editor you template is doing things that skirt our rules, then it is appropriate.

When the editor is doing a great job improving our encyclopedia, it is not appropriate.

CapnZapp (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

9

Not a problem I have a lot better to be the only one that I can get to work on and to have a great 2600:4041:3C1:D800:79E4:AB85:D1BD:B15A (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"One or more of your edits..." – inconsistent and wishy-washy language over singular/plural

Moved from Template talk:Db-notice § Plural contributions

An offshoot of this discussion raised the issue of language in user-warning templates (particularly level 1 of multi-levels) using wishy-washy language about whether the warning concerns just one of the user's edits, or more than one, with the resulting vague wording trying to cover both cases, which ends up just making it look even more obviously like a template. There isn't a consistent approach among templates about how they handle the sing./pl. issue. One proposal mentioned there was to add a template param (maybe |one=yes, or |num=singular?) to tighten up the template language.

Once the warning gets to level 2, by definition we are talking about more than one occurrence, so plural is appropriate for level 2 and higher and we only need to look at the level 1 warnings (or single-level templates, in some cases). These templates grew organically over many years via separate paths, so the inconsistency is hardly surprising, but that doesn't mean we can't fix it fairly easily, if there's consensus to do so.

Here's a breakdown of selected level 1 templates and a sprinkling of single-use templates, with excerpts:

Excerpts from warning templates showing how they approach the "one or more" issue:

All examples are from level 1 of multi-level templates, unless otherwise noted. Singular only: {{uw-bite}}: a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh – single-level {{uw-ics1}}: one of your recent file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status {{uw-mislead1}}: you recently made an edit in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. {{uw-nor1}}: in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, {{uw-npov1}}: Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. {{uw-pronouns1}}: you changed the personal pronouns of an individual in one of your recent edits Plural only: {{uw-own1}}: in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page Singular OR plural: {{uw-copying}}: It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. – single-level {{uw-disrupt1}}: one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. {{uw-redirect1}}: one or more redirects you created have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted or deleted. – ouch, triple-OR! {{uw-subtle1}}: At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was ... {{uw-v1}}: I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. Number-neutral: {{uw-badcat}}: Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. – single-level {{uw-bareurl}}: you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. – single-level {{uw-delete1}}: I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. {{uw-fringe1}}: content you added to a Wikipedia article appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted {{uw-unsourced1}}: you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source.

Some questions arise from this:

1. Should we strive for consistent wording regarding "one or more", or "edit or edits", etc. across warning templates? All, or only some? Which?
2. If yes to at least some, what approach should we take? Number-neutral language that covers both cases? Is that feasible in all cases? Or maybe adding param |1=yes to specify "singular" (or, |multi=yes, or |num=sing / |num=plural)? Should we strive for the same param default in each case, or case-by-case, with some warning templates defaulting to singular, and others to plural?
3. A question was raised in the other discussion about whether it's possible to determine sg/pl automatically.
4. Are there other approaches we should consider?
5. Or is it fine as is, so no changes needed?

Thoughts? Thanks to Sdkb for initiating the discussion at Template talk:Db-notice that sparked this. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

New series: uw-ai

This series was created by Trey Maturin, as a derivative of uw-test, in connection to very extensive discussions, most of which are linked to at Wikipedia talk:Large language models. The original discussion about this problem was at VPP. There's a Signpost essay about it. The latest incidents which immediately preceded the creation of the new warnings are at ANI. There are also many more routine types of such incidents, whereby LLM-originated drafts are created. From what I've seen based on my speedy deletion tagging, administrators delete them. I've previously been posting repurposed/improvised notifications about LLM misuse on creators' pages, such as seen here: User talk:Tapiwa r.#March 2023. I incorporated the templates into the project. All comments are welcome. —Alalch E. 22:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning templates, but I'm a bit concerned about the wording on the level-3 template, which says that repeatedly introducing LLM content can be considered vandalism; I feel that such behavior is disruptive at worst. I think the warning would be better worded as follows, incorporating the {{uw3}} template:

Please stop. If you continue to make edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an AI chatbot or another application using such a technology), you may be blocked from editing.

It also falls more in line with the UWP's style guides. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree; in the absence of consensus that such additions do constitute vandalism, disruptive is the better word. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

While the edits may be disruptive and problematic, adding such content in itself certainly wouldn't fall under any of the current criteria of WP:VANDTYPES. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed to the standard uw3, with "make non-constructive edits" in place of "make edits".—Alalch E. 14:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the edits (which commonly include factual statements that are completely false but sound good, as well as fake references) can easily fall within Hoaxing vandalism, Page creation, illegitimate and Subtle vandalism. Specifically, "adding plausible misinformation to articles" for the latter type. It may be unintentional in many cases, but edits that are indistinguishable from vandalism are vandalism. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's unintentional, by definition it's not vandalism: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism – WP:VAND. Only the deliberate addition of misleading or incorrect information is vandalism. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hoaxing vandalism is intentionally adding things you know to be false. Adding Wikia as a reliable source is problematic but it isn't vandalism and relying on an unreliable tool to add information isn't that dissimilar from relying on an unreliable source; it's not good, it's a problem, but it's not vandalism. WP:Vandalism is very specific that Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism and avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia. Adding this kind of content can be vandalism in certain circumstances but it is not prima facie vandalism under Wikipedia's definition of the term. - Aoidh (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. —Alalch E. 16:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new template for WP:NOTTHEM

I'm thinking of something like this.

Extended content

I am declining your unblock request. You were blocked for your own conduct, not for the conduct of other users. Blaming or attacking other users will only demonstrate your incompetence will not and hinder collaboration Discussing other user's conduct is not constructive and only hinder collaberation . Attempting to justify your edits as "right" will not help you get you unblocked either. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Thoughts? 137a (talk • edits) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit aggressive to me. "Demonstrate your incompetence"? Could that be spun in a more positive manner? DonIago (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How about changing the sentence about "blaming" to Discussing other user's conduct is not useful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've stricken out some of the text. The new text I replaced it with is underlined. 137a (talk • edits) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

I believe it would be helpful to add a link to WP:CRV in the warning to give possibly new editors being warned information about correct and incorrect removal of content. "I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why." could be changed to, "I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why." interstatefive  23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Uw-unverified1 (new)

 Courtesy link: Template:Uw-unverified1

I've run into a need for something like new template {{uw-unverified1}} a fair bit over the years, including a couple of occasions just in the last few weeks (latest one, here; hand-rolled in several edits). Basically, it's like {{uw-unsourced1}}, except it's for the case where they *do* add a source but it doesn't verify the content. What I usually do in this case, is to first {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, and then make a second edit, altering the wording appropriately, and trying to remember what wording I used the last time. Finally got tired of it, and wanted some sort of solution to avoid wasting my time all the time.

I can imagine two approaches: one where we add another param to {{uw-unsourced1}} and then parametrically alter the wording for the "gave-a-source" case, or a new template. The first option seems a bit squirrely, and also isn't really the way things are done here, afaict. So, I ended up splitting it off into a new template, borrowing as much wording from {{uw-unsourced1}} as I could, and tweaking the rest (see diff). I think it could become a two-level multi, possibly defaulting to {{uw-unsourced3}} if we need a 3rd level. Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems valid as a standalone uw. Only suggestion I might make is to have a shortcut title, {{uw-fv1}} as the counterpart to {{fv}}. Or even rename it?

No need for level 2 or above warnings: if the offence is repeated, then it is uw-disruptive time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Both of those suggestions make sense to me. More feedback appreciated, before we decide on a course of action. Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed template for WP:ISU

Current warn template for WP:UN doesn't fit for non-promotional accounts that appear to be in violation of WP:ISU. Does something like this work?

Extended content

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because implies your account is shared between multiple individuals, which violates our policies. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. If this is a shared account, everyone involved should create new individual accounts for editing. If this is not a shared account, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

– Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Created at Template:Uw-isu. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

UW template for warning regarding WP:SHAREDACCOUNT?

Is there a UW template warning an editor about the probably use of a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT? I couldn't find one. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Would be a good idea to suggest to the village pump or something. Proto-worlder (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Uw-disruptive2 and 3

I wanted to give a level 2 disruption warning but couldn't use it because there is no content dispute involved. So it made me wonder why {{Uw-disruptive2}} and 3 have any need to mention content dispute at all? In any such case that I have ever seen, {{uw-ewsoft}} and {{uw-editwar}} have done that job. I have seen many cases of disruptive editing that just manages to avoid being categorised as vandalism.

So my proposal is that we remove the bullet points from ew-d2 and ew-d3, leaving just the current opening and closing paragraphs (making them consistent with ew-d1 and ew-d4).

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this idea could be combined with Aasim's proposal immediately above. |details= could be used to supply the current "content dispute" text when that is relevant but omitted when it is not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this combined proposal too! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

I noticed the Huggle version of this had included the phrase "Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page". This could be a great addition to this warning before it asks the person to add references to the article, as it educated newcomers to go to the talk page for edits that may spark controversy. interstatefive  23:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Interstatefive: User warning templates have their talk pages redirect to this central one, so this talk page encompasses a wide variety of templates. Which one are you referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The second level for the addition of unsourced content: Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. interstatefive  03:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This doesn't look like a good idea - the problem with unsourced edits is that they are not sourced not that they are controversial, and adding a reference will likely make the edit uncontroversial and not need to use the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Two templates were made.

I've set up Template:Uw-plotsum4 to complete the series after a question I had a while ago. (and I set up plotsum3). The other one I've set up was Template:Uw-paid4im/. Maybe Uw-paid4im isn't super needed, because of the fact that someone who is super obviously getting paid for their edits, but not disclosing that, would probably be blocked immediately due to the fact that undisclosed paid editing violates Wikimedia's Terms of Service. The Silent Ones (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I still question the need for plotsum3 or 4...I rarely even need to use 2, and honestly if someone needs a 3 or (how???) 4 then I think a general warning for disruptive editing may be a better way to go, but I acknowledge that having them around doesn't cause any harm and may prove useful. DonIago (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

Please add a {{{details|}}} parameter between "Please stop." and "If you continue to...". The reason is so that the template can be used for stuff like Template:Uw-disruptive3. It is good to have consistency between messages, and the base uw messages allow for that. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a little confused, editor Aasim – do you want to replace |reason= and |page= with |details=? Don't really see how a |details= parameter would add anything to the existing parameters, which already seem to do the job you want to do. Do I need enlightenment? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue is Template:Uw-disruptive3 has additional details between the "Please stop" and "If you continue to" message. Adding a details parameter would allow for the bullet point details to be preserved while standardizing the template. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the issue with using |extra= instead? @Awesome Aasim Izno (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It would allow for this on Template:uw-disruptive3:

| extra = * If you are engaged in a content dispute, ... Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok so I got confused, extra is for the end. Details would be for the middle. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but why does it need to go in "the middle"? Izno (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Izno (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

Regarding Template:Uw-vandalism1, where it says they did not appear constructive.
I suggest changing it to they did not appear to be constructive.
Just a minor clarification to the language being used. Thanks for your consideration, Fork99 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The language used seems like reasonable English to me. Izno (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: User warning template for when a user is suspected of sharing accounts

Given the question made User:Steel1943, (here:[1]) I am making a proposal to create a user warning template for when a user is suspected of sharing accounts.

There is currently no appropriate template for this, with the closest one maybe being {{uw-agf-sock}}. This one is very inadequate since it refers to sockpuppetry, not account sharing.

Here is what this template may look like.

Uw-accshare

Hello, Template index/User talk namespace! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that this account may be used by multiple people. Sharing accounts is prohibited on Wikipedia, and those who do may be blocked from editing. If there are multiple people sharing this account, please make them log out and create an account. Additionally, please change the password on this account. Thank you.

Please feel free to provide any and all feedback to my proposal. Millows (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. The problem is that the username doesn't meet our policy on usernames, and that is already covered by template {{uw-username}}. You could just do:

{{subst:Uw-username|it implies possible use by multiple individuals}}

resulting in this:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Template index", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies possible use by multiple individuals. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

Or do you see a shared-account issue that needs addressing that is entirely divorced from the username issue? Is there a live example of this? Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Original text:

Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;

The two links are a little mixed up: "advertising" links to "soapbox" and "soapbox" links to "soapbox or means of promotion":

• [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Advertising]]
• [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|soapbox]]

I propose pointing them to specific links, e.g.:

• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for advertising|Advertising]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox]]

Or it could be better to link the whole phrase, with a little rewrite:

Using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" or means of promotion is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;

• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|Using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" or means of promotion]] is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;

Sidenote: I'm using redirected links in these examples, but the corresponding section links would also be fine. I'm not sure why the verbose versions are being used currently, but I imagine there's a good reason.

— W.andrea (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Previous warnings

There is a template for informing other editors that a vandal has removed prior warnings that can be viewed in the edit history of their user talk. I can't remember the name of it and cannot find it, can someone help? – Meena • 11:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a change to the template index.

If this was unjustified, please do revert. I've blanked out the Islamic honorific warnings 3 and after and replaced islamhon2 to mos2 on the template index. The Islamic honorific warnings stopped at 1 (and the Manual of Style warnings replace it after that), so that way it doesn't show too much different ones in the same row. It does appear that Islamic honorifics are more an NPOV thing than a MOS thing. The redirects should stay, because some user-warning tools might use those instead of the uw-mos series. GrishForce (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with Template:Uw-spamublock?

I spend a lot of time monitoring CAT:RFU. I'm concluding that there's something wrong with Template:Uw-spamublock. The vast majority of the unblock requests for this indicate the user is strongly under the impression that the problem with their account is the name; it's almost always "ok, please change my name and then I can edit again", and almost never "oh, I'm sorry I've been spamming, here's what I'll do in the future, and also, please change my name." Users who are blocked using spamublock - at least the ones who request unblocking - are rarely malicious spammers; most often they are associated with small businesses and are simply unaware of our policies. I think we need to modify the text so that it's clear that the username issue is entirely secondary to the spamming issue. Small changes could change the emphasis. For example:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request an unblock and a change of username. In your unblock request, you must:

• Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
• Provide a new username.

(Instructions for making the request follow)

This moves the emphasis from the name to the problematic behavior, and should result in less confusion on the part of the blocked user, and less time wasted explaining stuff to users who thought they had fixed the problem by asking for a rename.

Thoughts? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I think your rewritten text does a good job at putting more emphasis on the spamming. I'd endorse these changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Who's that "you" that the first three bullets are talking to? The spam account holder... or holders? There's a very logical reason why it is the way it is, i.e. why users are advised to change the name first, and why the name indeed needs to change first. It's not a secondary issue. Spam names are concurrent with shared use. Changing a name to a permitted name that distinguishes the individual, at least looking from the outside, resolves the shared use problem so that a human actor can make commitments and be held accountable. If Jim, Bob, and Jill are ostensibly behind "User:SuperCorp", their description of what they're collectively going to do while sharing the account isn't much good.—Alalch E. 19:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of the time it's individuals. The issue of role accounts and multiple users of a single account is disjoint from the advertising/promotion issue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't know and shouldn't automatically presume that they're individuals when they're representing a collective entity by virtue of their username. The template is supposed to work when the issue overlaps. —Alalch E. 21:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Supposed to" according to who? How many unblock requests do you deal with on a regular basis? We should indeed presume they are individuals as part of WP:AGF unless their actions and words indicate otherwise. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Uw-spamublock/sandbox; I've got a first pass on a new version there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've implemented the change. We'll see if it makes any difference in the nature of the relevant unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hard to tell if it's made a difference (since of course we wouldn't see what people are doing less of.) I've put a small change in the sandbox -- numbering instead of bullets on the desired steps. Maybe putting the new name as number 4 would indicate that it's "all of these things", not "one of these things"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying an "and" at the end of each required action. Perhaps it will be noticed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

What template to warn editor about failed verification?

Today I noticed that a new editor modified content cited to a particular source (which I have access to) changing the meaning to something other than what the source said. There's no template for failed verification as far as I can tell. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd either use {{uw-unsourced1}}, or possibly {{uw-error1}}, with an added explanation if you feel it's warranted. BilCat (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think either of these would be helpful for the situation, since the content does not appear to unsourced and may not be erroneous—just fails verification in the source that was cited. Therefore, I created Template:Uw-fv1 and I'm requesting for it to be added to Twinkle. (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

More accurate text

On Template:Uw-notenglishedit, replace "I removed one or more of your recent additions" with "one or more of your recent additions has been removed" because someone else could have removed the edit. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 13:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it, but the template wasn't even protected, so you could have. GrishForce (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I found a piece of vandalism and reverted it

Am I allowed to use the {{uw-vandalism2}} template or is it meant to be used by administrators only? AmberWing1352 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifically I would be warning someone for these edits to Internet Censorship AmberWing1352 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@AmberWing1352: yes, you can use it; there aren't really any requirements for placing these, as long as it is in response to vandalism. You should subst it, like {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. AmberWing1352 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Making a new template of this type

Hello. I'm looking over the guidelines while making a new template of this type. The rules are quite specific (perhaps because they are used in scripts and gadgets?). Is there a checklist or any kind of approval process for the warning template once I feel it's ready? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I added one a while back, after I convinced myself that the template was in robust, good order, and was compliant with the design guideline. So I'd say, WP:BE BOLD. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Uw-ga-driveby

 Courtesy link: Template:Uw-ga-driveby

Rjjiii, Proposed text change:

−

It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided in January 2023 to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions).

+

Current practice is that only editors who have significantly contributed to the article are able to nominate it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions).

The more time goes on, the less likely anybody is going to know or care what happened before Jan. 2023. I left two words ("current practice") in there to handle the case I think you were trying to deal with, i.e., the "surprise" factor for those who may have been doing this for a long time and missed the update, but even those words should come out after a time, and the template should ultimately just say what the requirement *is*, without worrying too much about what it used to be. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, I'm okay with that change and you're welcome to make it. Also, there's a discussion about this template ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA drive-by user warning?, if you want to move this section over there or drop a link to it. Thanks for the feedback, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii, Okay, I made that change, and made param1 optional. Also changed the doc format to use the single-notice template format. In addition, your version of the doc had it listed as part of the Twinkle standard installation, so I kept that, but is that really true? I believe you have to notify Twinkle and wait for someone to add it, although I'm unfamiliar with how they do it or what exactly is involved, so check with them. Maybe the Twinkle banner should be removed from the doc until and if it is added. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning template for adding a wrong reference

Hey, is there a warning template for adding a wrong reference? If not, could you please add one?

For example: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Transavia&diff=prev&oldid=1182003448

The article is about the airline Transavia and the user added a reference about a poultry company called Transavia totally not belonging there.

My suggestion is similar to the template for of not adding references:

Please stop. If you continue to add references, that don't support the particular material, as you did in the Transavia article, you may be blocked from editing.

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop. If you continue to add [[Wikipedia:PROVEIT|wrong references, that don't support the particular material]], as you did in the [["name of article"]] article, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. [["Possible explanation"]] <!-- Template:uw-wrongref1 --> WikiPate (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Uw-engvar

While this template's explanation of the "national varieties of English" policy has all of the necessary detail for explaining said policy, it fails to account for a common cause of infractions, which is a lack of knowledge of alternate spellings that result in mistaking different varieties of English for misspellings. Speaking from personal experience, I think that the template assuming any change to be intentional localization comes across as harsh or unfeeling when that is not the user's intention, even if the language is not aggressive.

The addition of a short passage acknowledging the possibility of said mistake will dampen negative reception without muddying the informative aspect of the message. Meatius Pizzus (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really read it that way. To me, the sentence, "In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another" is merely stating the fact of the matter, not assuming intent or the knowledge of the editor. That said, I'm curious to see what other editors will think. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There's that, but then there's, "In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English." I don't even think that needs to be changed, it's absolutely correct, but it definitely assumes the editor's intent was localization. Meatius Pizzus (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Respect other people's versions of English" seems like something that could perhaps be removed; it sounds a bit scolding to me. More broadly, everything from the "even if..." could probably go as being unnecessary, but again, I'd like to hear from other editors on this before we seriously contemplate any changes. DonIago (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Uw-minor - Move the Help link?

This template has Please see Help:Minor edit for more information at the end, but the term "Minor edit" is already mentioned above, so to me, it makes more sense to link it there instead. I usually do this when I'm using the template myself, specifically:

... I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.

— W.andrea (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Brennan Everette (🗣️ | ⏳) 13:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hello, I'm [Username]"

I propose removing this opening from the level-1 templates (and any others that might have it). It's redundant with the signature, distracts from the person getting the actual message, is irrelevant, is kind of misleading (implies that the editor leaving the template is some kind of authority figure who needs to be name-dropped), and tends to be repetitive with other messages (e.g. previous warnings/notices and a previous welcome template left by the same editor). I wouldn't be opposed to retaining an introductory "Hello" at the level-1 stage, but the username injection is repetitive and arguably counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but the feeling I always had from it was about someone being accountable up front, rather than having to wait for the end of the spiel to determine who is addressing me and whether I should trust them or even bother with it or not. With the intro, it also made it feel slightly more personal, a bit less anonymous. A bit like the evangelistic couple knocking at my door and wanting to talk to me about getting saved; polite forbearance is about as much as I can manage in that situation, but if they start off with, "Hi, I'm Matthew, and this is Jonah", I'm more likely to listen, maybe even all the way to the end, than if they just launch into it, and then leave a card with their name on it at the end. I won't shed any tears if it's removed, but I don't see a need for the change. Should we try going in the other direction, to see how that sounds? "Hi, I'm Mathglot. I'm a Pisces, and I like surfing, apple strudel, and cosplay conventions. Your edit at 'Article' was deemed unconstructive and has been undone. ..." No? Okay, just checking... Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That this might come off as something like a religious proselyter makes me want to remove it even more. Having the name redundantly up-front does nothing to indicate "whether I should trust them or even bother with it or not", since some noob receiving this template (and we generally WP:Don't template the regulars, certainly not with these uw-foo1 boilerplate notices) has no idea who anyone here is. And even if they did, that just comes full cicle to my original point: "implies that the editor leaving the template is some kind of authority figure" which is generally never the case. The recipient can't even tell whether the leaver of the message is an admin or not and wouldn't be in a position to know whether that meant anything significant (often it would not due to WP:INVOLVED) anyway. I don't even think "slightly more personal, a bit less anonymous" is a good idea, since these are boilerplate, and the whole point of them is getting across policies and guidelines that apply to everyone evenly, not raising some kind of personalized dispute with the recipient individual, e.g. about their talk-page attitude, their particular viewpoint, or anything else specific to them (or to the editor leaving the message). I get that the intent is make the messages seem more "friendly", but it's just really clumsy and in some ways counterproductive. When something more personal (in any of these senses) is needed, just follow up the template with a sentence or two that more particularly addresses the edits in question and why an issue is being raised about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I remember being pretty surprised when the greetings were first added to the templates. I'm assuming there was a consensus to do so, but I've not reviewed any pertinent discussion. As newbie-friendly templates that are intended to be at least somewhat welcoming in addition to advisory, I don't know whether I have a strong feeling about that (though I find them a little "cutesy"), but I do wish...if I may go off-topic for a moment...that the templates advised editors to express content-based concerns at the article's Talk page rather than my own Talk page. I'm happy to field general usage questions on my Talk page, but many of the questions I get are related to reversions that any experienced editor might be able to weigh in on (whether to support or oppose my changes), so instead of an open discussion that others might see, we end up in a one-on-one where I'm explaining my viewpoint, which other editors might not even agree with. It slows things down and potentially means the new editor doesn't get a fair hearing on the merits of their edit. I do try to remember to suggest that the editor can bring the conversation to the article's Talk page, but I'm sure I don't always do so. DonIago (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

New users won't always realise that something like SMcCandlish ☏ ¢😼 or Belbury (talk) at the end of a message is even a signature or the name of a person at all. Being notified of a level 1 template on their user talk will in most cases be the first time that they'll have ever seen a Wikipedia talk page.

"Hello I'm" seems like a neat and subtle way to clarify how talk page comments are structured, and to perhaps emphasise that the message they're reading has been posted by a human rather than automatically (and more ignorably) by the Wikipedia software. Belbury (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

But they don't need to know our name, they need to stop doing the disruptive things they are doing. The name intro makes this seems like a personal opinion or a forum post, when it is a standardized warning or at least a correction. And it doesn't tell them how talk pages are structured. You'll notice, I did not begin with post my user name; it's at the end, where it always is on everyone's post. An additional rationale is that I don't want random vandals to get it in their heads that because I'm prominently pinned my name to a post criticizing and warning their behavior that I should become the focus of their activity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this might be good for new users, to make the message look more friendlier, and just to show they made a little mistake. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 18:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think for level 1 templates it works to have that phrasing. Back when I started editing I got one of those templates on my talk page, and I had no idea what the signature at the end was, so the "Hello, I'm [_]" was pretty useful to teach me. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if something has become messed up with this template. I noticed today, on User talk:Gordonemery, that Gordonemery was hilariously mocking the fact that it looked as if I had introduced myself as him, but it appears the template is just updating with whoever is the last person to... leave a comment? As of the time of writing, it shows Richard Keatinge's user name in the original post. If you look at the first diff, it displays correctly, but each subsequent diff changes the username in the original post. Seasider53 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems that's probably because the template wasn't substituted. I'm not a template expert though. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and there were five instances of transclusion ({{uw1|...}}) instead of substitution ({{subst:uw1|...}}), which I've fixed]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

Would it be possible to create a standard warning for misrepresenting what sources say? I run into this problem a lot. The current unsourced warnings tend to be people adding no sources. Yuchitown (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

template:uw-notenglish

It occurs to me that this template {{notenglish}} should support a parameter indicating the language of the contribution in question. Such as a ISO 639 language code, and a suggestion about contributing to the Wikipedia (if it exists) in that language. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Template for excessive details

Moved from Wikipedia:Requested templates

 – See Special:Diff/1201682705. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A template similar to the uw-vandalism1 template It should go like this: Hello, I"m (user). I noticed that you added unneeded details in one or more of (your contributions). It's been removed for now. If you want to know how to be concise, see WP:TLDR.

Note: this is a rough draft of the template. Improvements would be greatly appreciated. ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does simply adding unneeded details (which could be a matter of opinion) necessitate a user warning? If it's an indisputable pattern, I would think that would fall under disruptive editing. I'm also not immediately sure which policies/guidelines "adding unneeded detail" would be considered a violation of (there's already a warning template if we're talking about the plot summaries for many types of media articles). Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries helping reduce chances of reversion

For {{Uw-editsummary}} and {{Uw-editsummary2}}, would others support adding a mention that using edit summaries in practice reduces the chances that an edit will be reverted? This seems like a more direct incentive to use them than some of the language presently there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Uw-plotsum templates have broken series links

Template:Uw-plotsum1 and Template:Uw-plotsum3 don't list {{Uw-plotsum4}} in the series list at the bottom of the page, I don't know how to fix this, can someone fix it for me please? Theooolone (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed DonIago (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Uw-test1

I dislike the phrasing "a mistake was made", even if it is not what was intended here. I recommend just using the wording "if you think I made a mistake" like many other user warning templates. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Since no one opposed this proposal, I will be adding the editreq template. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Uw-editsummary2 – Adding thanks to template message

Moved from Template talk:Uw-editsummary2

 – Moved to centralized discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello all- Question re editing this template's message, or creating another version of it: I occasionally leave talk page messages encouraging use of edit summaries. Sometimes I invoke this template via RedWarn (where it is called "Not using edit summary for more experienced users"). Ideally, where appropriate, I'd like to have the option to change the opening "Hello" to "Hello, and thank you for your contributions". Does anyone think that it might be worth considering that we change this templates message to that? I understand that the thank-you might not always be merited, so I wanted to run the idea by anyone who watches here.

Side question: Using RedWarn to post template messages always creates a section header with the month and year. Does anyone know if there is a mechanism to suggest alternate section headings to the keepers of RedWarn? For example, I would prefer that this template's message be given a header more along the lines of "Edit summaries, please". Thanks in advance for any comment. Eric ^talk 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eric You can leave feedback for the RedWarn team at Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet, but most of their efforts right now are on developing Ultraviolet (which will eventually replace RedWarn), so I wouldn't expect much luck with a feature request right now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Maybe I'll post the above there as a sort of wishlist item. Eric ^talk 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

The templates Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4, Template:Uw4im, and Template:Uw2 are being considered for merging with Template:Uw. Please add <noinclude> {{subst:tfm|Uw}} </noinclude> to these templates. Thanks. Awesome Aasim 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

In {{uw-delete1}}:

If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored.

If I, for one, was a brand-new editor who made an edit only to have it immediately wiped off the site, I would probably read that part of the warning message and interpret it as insinuating that my edit was so ridiculous it could only have resulted as a mistake. Even if that's not what happens, why are we judging whether someone intentionality did an edit or not in the first place? We should simply say

I have restored the deleted content to be safe.

Or even just

I have restored the deleted content.

Even "I have restored the deleted content in case this was a mistake" would be better than the current text, and would convey the same meaning without the condescencion.

I would also advocate similar changes for {{uw-blpprod1}}, {{uw-tdel1}}, {{uw-blank1}}, {{uw-idt1}}, {{WPRYT Uw-banner}} (why does a WikiProject have dedicated warnings?!), and {{uw-speedycontest1}}. 24.24.242.66 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I do not view this as condescending. Assuming that an editor did not deliberately damage an article is part of WP:AGF — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "If this was a mistake" seems like very clear language to me, freely allowing for the possibility that it wasn't a mistake. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

Hello, this edit request is to add the |link= option to the warning icon.

This has the effect of removing the link on the warning icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.

But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).

The diff is:

−

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]]

+

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon|link=]]

The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates. I've edited most of them manually, and I'm glad to see most level 3 templates transclude Uw3, that's much less tedious =)

I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw3/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 93 transclusions, there are some user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 3 uw templates. I'm hoping this is okay, as a small cosmetic fix for dark mode compat.

Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that reminds me I should take the opportunity to double-check the level 1s and 2s all have a proper alt text, since they don't transclude uw1/uw2, it's very possible a couple are missing it. Mlkj (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Please revert this, the image is licensed {{LGPL}} which is not public domain, so the link to the file description page must not be defeated. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images concerns the |alt= option, not the |link= option. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Note that I also introduced the same change on some level 1 and 2 user warning templates. It will have to be reverted there as well. Although, I'm hoping to replace it with another workaround based on the PNG version of the image that preserves attribution while keeping dark mode compatibility.

The theme compatibility is certainly less important than the attribution, so I'm happy to see this reverted quickly. That said, would you have any objection to doing both changes at once, to save some back and forth? I've applied what I have in mind to the Uw3 sandbox. Mlkj (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted and added a bit of clarifying text to help me the next time I go looking for guidance on blank |link= parameters. As for svg v. png, I thought that svg was generally preferred. If there is a bug with dark mode, shouldn't we fix that bug instead of working around it by changing image calls in a bunch of templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 February 2024 (2)

Hello (again), this edit request is to add the |link= option to the stop hand icon. (Essentially the same request as above, now for the uw4 template).

This has the effect of removing the link on the stop icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.

But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).

The diff is:

−

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

+

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]]

The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates, while uw3 is fully converted over.

I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw4/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 151 transclusions, there are some user and user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 4 uw templates. (There's two transclusions into user .js files, but they don't do anything special, so I expect nothing there should break.)

Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: File:Stop hand nuvola.svg requires attribution per its Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. Removing the link is considered violating the "Attribution" part of the license of the file. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I was unaware. It makes sense that attribution would require a link.

Could the following diff be considered instead?

−

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

+

[[File:Stop2.png|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

This displays the same stop hand image. Including a PNG instead of the SVG is a different way to workaround the issue without having to remove the link. Mlkj (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it would be better to fix the root cause of this problem instead of working around it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert above. About svg vs png, my understanding from Help:SVG is that MediaWiki will always convert SVGs to PNGs, at least for small icons, but that it is preferred to upload SVGs since they are easier to edit, and allow MediaWiki to serve the most appropriate size PNG thumbnail (saving bandwidth). In this case, it would be a 2kB PNG vs a 54kB PNG. I'd argue not a very significant increase, if the image will be cached. The editing concern should also be okay, since the SVG is still the source of truth, the PNG just a practical render of it.

Absolutely agree that a proper fix would be better than a workaround, but I suspect the behavior of forcing SVGs to have a white background even in dark mode is intended. Many SVGs will feature black lines on a transparent background, since transparency is the default behavior for most SVG editors. It would arguably be a bug in the other direction to display those on a black background, so my guess is they made this change to force a white background on SVGs intentionally.

The fix is almost certainly not removing the white background unconditionally in MediaWiki. Ideally, there would be a CSS class to opt-in SVG transparency, without using a workaround (in the same way that there is .mw-no-invert to opt-in the color inversion filter on black-and-white images).

I'm not a MW contributor myself, and I suspect this won't top the list of high-priority issues in Phabricator. I'm unsure whether it's worth bothering with the workaround, but my expectation is we won't see a proper fix for some time, it doesn't look like an easy fix.

Sorry for the slight wall of text. Feedback and opinions welcome :) Mlkj (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mlkj: The white background is a feature of the dark-mode gadget, not something about MediaWiki. Like Jonesey95, my impression was that the underlying issue with dark mode should be addressed instead. So I have been looking a bit at MediaWiki:Gadget-dark-mode.css#L-163, which is where this is coded in. This is meant to fix images like those with black text on a transparent background (see, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget)#Fixed elements are movable, Text on SVGs, and Black color), but it usually just seems slightly annoying. (Here is a comment suggesting it be removed — but seemingly not aware that it was intentional.)

One way to fix these user warning images would be to add another exception for images with " icon" in the alt text, since all of these uw templates have that.

html .image img[ alt^=" icon" ],
html .mw-file-description img[ alt^=" icon" ]

Another possible change would be not to add the white background unless the viewer hovers over it (but to add a white dotted outline so that the user can recognize that there is an image there).

(Note: Since there is more to discuss, perhaps continuing at WT:Dark mode (gadget), I am setting the edit request as inactive.) SilverLocust 💬 01:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Icons and copyright

@Mlkj recently noticed that, because the orange "information" icon has an attribution requirement in its license, we have to link to the file page if we use it. This is unfortunate, given that users who see a clickable information icon will generally expect it to lead to information about the warning they were just given, not a file page. Is it time for us to change our standard icon? Or is the current icon set simple enough that we could just declare it PD under {{PD-simple}}? Sdkb ^talk 19:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, and I can see now that other icons that are usually without link (like the vote icons used on noticeboards) are public domain, unlike the info icons. I evidently visit the File page a lot less often for icons than images in articles (or at least rarely intentionally). But for new users receiving a template notice, if there's any link we want them to visit the File page of the icon is probably not the first choice.

I'd absolutely be open to replacing the information icons with a PD alternative. Although these have been here for over 10 year so I expect quite a bit of pushback! Small but very visible UI changes can result in the longest discussions, everyone may very well have an opinion on the matter.

I wasn't aware of {{PD-simple}}, very interesting. I wonder whether the info icon might have too much of a distinctive identity to qualify purely text or purely simple geometric shapes. Although looking where {{PD-simple}} is transcluded, some of those logos are pretty intricate... I'm far from a subject matter expert, so I'd be happy to take any more informed user's word for it!

I also wonder if we could contact the author (assuming they're still around). Maybe they'd be willing to offer a license that doesn't require attribution? Mlkj (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobarino is the creator, although it looks like they're not very active. Sdkb ^talk 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is an earlier png version by User:Renesis, who would seem to be the relevant original author for that icon (so Bobarino can't decrease whatever license applied). I was thinking of asking at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright whether those icons fail the threshold of creativity (as I think they do, though the shading can contribute a bit beyond the shape and text). SilverLocust 💬 01:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Renesis unfortunately isn't very active these days either. Definitely feel free to ask about whether they pass the threshold of originality (WP:Media copyright questions might also be a relevant spot). Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 01:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I imagine Commons would be the better place, since it's merely mirrored on enwiki. (Apparently my edit to link c:Threshold of originality did not go through (possibly due to an edit conflict and then closing the tab). Threshold of originality, modicum of creativity, threshold of creativity — potato, tomato, pomato.) SilverLocust 💬 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:uw-dupargs

Can someone add the proper documentation and categories to Template:Uw-dupargs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? It's not currently documented nor categorized. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, the missing template was added and thank you for pointing it out! 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The new documentation is deficient, it references non-existant shortcuts. Why would this short named template need such shortcuts? It's not a fully spelled out template name. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:uw-test1

Change the last word 'Thanks!' of the template to 'Thanks.', omit the exclamation mark to keep polite and formal. Like this Hello, I'm 2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! but 'Thanks.' rather than 'Thanks!'.2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the exclamation mark in that specific template is a good idea (though I'd agree with you for every single other warning template). Editing tests are made in good faith – the user is not attempting to damage Wikipedia, but rather see what happens or see if they are able to edit. We really don't want to scare away these people, because they are potential contributors. The exclamation point in this case, in my opinion, helps significantly to make it clear that while we don't want them to test editing in live articles, nobody is 'upset with them'. Being informal in this case is a feature, not a bug. Tollens (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Uw-npa4im

At the last sentence, we should write as Please comment on content, not on contributors rather than Comment on content, not on contributors to keep it formal. 2001:EE0:4BC2:15B0:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering it's the 4th warning, I think saying please is the least of worries. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per The Grid. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for inclusion (2024-03-11)

I made a warning template for gaming the system, User:Mseingth2133444/uw-gts for gaming the system and I request it be included in the list of templates. Or can I just do it myself? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What does gaming the system mean in this context? The list of templates is really for general templates. – The Grid (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a mix between vandalism and disruptive editing? That, and the fact that it has its own policy article influenced me to create it. So you're saying we should just use DE templates? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Grid Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I doubt anything more specific would be added here. – The Grid (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

Please start the template by Hello, I'm Example. This is a message to let you know that one or more of [[your recent edits]] appeared to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. for consistency.

113.165.236.133 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the page's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I have tested on the sandbox. Discuss whether it is more appropriate to change. 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:2CA9:DB6F:E9D5:5AE7 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request to remove TfM tags from uw templates

Please remove the TfM templates from these templates, as it was closed as no consensus. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 06:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 08:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:uw-vandalism4 and Template:uw-generic4's documentations look not consistent.

Please fix this as soon as possible. Thanks. 2001:EE0:4BC2:15B0:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what you are referring to. Please state the edits to be made in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444, I mean the documentations of them about formatting seems not consistent in order. 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:2CA9:DB6F:E9D5:5AE7 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done What about it is inconsistent? You need to be more specific or nobody can help you. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444, the template {{Single notice}} source code should not be used, which produces:

Documentation

How to use:

{{subst:Template index/User talk namespace}}

{{subst:Template index/User talk namespace|Article}} references a specific article

{{subst:Template index/User talk namespace|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you"

{{subst:Template index/User talk namespace||Additional text}} or {{subst:Template index/User talk namespace|2=Additional text}} also adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you", but doesn't link a page as specified by the article.

• Please remember to substitute the template using {{subst:Template index/User talk namespace}} rather than {{Template index/User talk namespace}}.
• To give greater detail to your message, you may add the article and some additional text to the end of the template. If such article or additional text includes a URL or anything which includes an equal sign ("="), it may break the parser's function unless you prefix the article or the text with a named template parameter. Use "1=" if the article contains an equals sign and use "2=" if the additional text contains an equals sign (such as a URL).
• Please refer to the index of message templates before using any template on user talk pages to warn a user. Applying the best template available for your purpose may help reduce confusion from the message you are sending.
• This template automatically populates the relevant category with the user page. If and when the user account gets blocked, or approximately eight weeks pass with no further action, that categorization is automatically removed.
• This standardized template conforms to guidelines by the user warnings project. You may discuss the visual appearance of these standardized templates (e.g. the image in the top-left corner) at the user warning talk page.
• This is the documentation for the {{Single notice}} standardized template, as used by several single-level user warnings or notice templates. It is located at Template:Single notice/inner(edit talk links history).

as the template {{uw-generic4}} is using. Alternatively, occupy the template {{Templatesnotice}} as most near-end warning templates used, including {{uw-delete4}} and {{uw-vandalism4}}, which outputs:

Documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Usage

{{subst:Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20}}

{{subst:Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20|article}} references a specific article

{{subst:Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20|article|additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thanks" or "Thank you"

• This standardized template conforms to guidelines by the user warnings project. You may discuss the visual appearance of these standardized templates (e.g. the image in the top-left corner) at the user warning talk page.
• Please refer to the index of message templates before using any template on user talk pages to warn a user. Applying the best template available for your purpose may help reduce confusion from the message you are sending.
• When using multi-level templates, in some cases you need not start with a level-1 warning. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Levels.
• Please remember to substitute the template using {{subst:Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20}} rather than {{wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20}}.
• To give greater detail to your message, you may add the article and some additional text to the end of the template.

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Templates notice. (edit | history)

.113.165.236.133 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with doing this if there is consensus. Also, please do not include transcluded templates in talk page replies.Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Do it for consistency. Beep beep beep boop? 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The changes in the wording of Template:Uw-vandalism1 are harmful

It used to say 'If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page'. Now it doesn't even mention the possibility that the identification of your edit was vandalism could have been a mistake, even though such mistakes are, in fact, made by vandal patrollers with regards to edits by IP editors all the time. Instead, it just assumes that if there is a problem, it must be due to you not understanding something. Instead of mentioning that you could talk to the actual person who sent you the template and dispute the claim that your edit was vandalism, it directs you to general forums. This is a rather horrible change. I suppose that vandal patrollers wanted to be able to revert away at peace without having to engage in any dialogue at all, treating the IPs like space invaders or zombies in a first person shooter game - which they had a tendency to do even before the change, hence the frequent 'false positives' - but this just means a total lack of accountability and greatly increased unfairness. This change is authoritarian and self-serving. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example of this change? The "level 1" templates I spot-checked all still have that wording while the "level 2" do not, and I do not see any recent changes in this regard. DMacks (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the vandalism level 1 template - here is the change, and it is currently in effect. It may not be exactly recent (2018), although it seems so if you have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 or so, as I have. I see that there was a majority for the change in the quick straw poll that the edit summary links to, but only a couple of users actually participated in the poll. Anyway, even if the majority of the community is for the current wording, I have the right to voice my opinion on its effects. The user's reasoning that 'we should be able to volunteer our time to fight vandalism without inviting drama to our talk pages', i.e. without having to justify our claims that something is vandalism, was incredibly complacent - basically assuming that people accusing others of vandalism are always right and shouldn't need to justify their actions, when in reality incorrect accusations of vandalism are made all the time. It's annoying enough to be reverted and accused of vandalism for no reason, but not having even the opportunity to object and having your mouth shut is the icing on the cake.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

I do think it's a bit arbitrary of a removal. I would be in favor of putting the talk page link back. Remsense诉 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to support the replacement. However I think there needs to be a careful balance between directing to the user who left the warning and community venues, like Tea House and the Help desk. The advantage of the community pages is two fold. Firstly more than one pair of eyes on the query, secondly it helps quickly resolve issues where a patroller has a wrong idea for some reason. It's certainly the case that the people who are best at reviewing thousands of edits may not be the best at dealing with conflict. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

I would like to add a section which says "Please check here (linking to Special:CentralAuth) to see if your username is similar to a different one." Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)"

To which template(s)? DonIago (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, forgot to add, sorry about that!

The template in question is Template:Uw-softerblock. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I already answered your edit request. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. Sorry, I was trying to clarify. Waylon (was) (here) 19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a template editor, but going to soft decline that as CentralAuth only tells if a username is taken, not what it's similar to. If someone else wants to accept it, go ahead. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes to uw-vaublock

Hey everyone! I've just made some changes to the template's sandbox because the text that we're seeing right now looked really vague and outdated compared to its sister uw-uhblock. The table below shows why we need this change and why it's worth it. More details about the change can be found here.

Current	New	Notes
it is being used only for vandalism	it is being used only for vandalism	This text should remain the exact same as no significant changes are needed.
Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy	Additionally, your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy	To remain in line with the block notice, the furthermore has been changed to additionally. and the word our has been changed to Wikipedia's to make clear that this is indeed Wikipedia. Blatant is now clear for added clarity.
meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia	it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia	The third sentence has been completely change for added clarity. We now have a detailed reason of why the username is in violation of the username policy. It's now more detailed and more explanatory than the old one.

If you have any questions about this change feel free to reply below! kleshkreikne. T 15:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got a question. Why do we have two different templates with the same wording? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Although it might’ve been the same, I just changed things up so that new users who aren’t familiar with what a block is understand this situation. I’ve kinda changed the wording a little bit, especially in the third sentence. kleshkreikne. T 20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

One is a username block, the other is a vandalism block, where the user is informed that their name is also not acceptable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

 Not done This template should be edited by or at the request of admins actually doing vandalism blocks, not non-admins who have opinions about what admins should say. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we clean up the number of warnings and block templates?

There are a huge ton of warning templates and they have appeared to turn into scope creep. There are easily over 200+ templates all just for warnings, and the functionality might actually be better with a different warning system, using {{uw}} ({{uw1}}, {{uw2}}, {{uw3}}, {{uw4}}) (which is a meta warning template) and related. A TfM I started at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_27#Uw_meta_templates found no consensus for merging the meta templates above but maybe we find something here.

My opinion is we should only have warnings for common problems that contributors make and in most cases we should try to personally hand write warning messages rather than standardize. Most of the cases above "level 3" can be addressed with "uw-disrupt3", etc. It IMHO is also counterproductive to warn vandals (as that is "feeding the trolls"); maybe just one or two warnings for "unconstructive editing" before pouncing with a block. I don't think all these templates document common problems, which is why we need standardization. Awesome Aasim 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Uw-copyright}} discussion over specific text wording

Resolved

Hey @Mathglot: In the template edit to {{Uw-copyright}}: I disagree with your removal of 'infringement', which changes the text from:

Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing.

to

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing.

Reason being: Copyright is the legal right granted by law to the creator of original works. Whereas, copyright infringement occurs when someone uses a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. In this specific sentence, Wikipedia as an entity is taking copyright infringement very seriously as those who violate the copyright policy will be blocked from editing. An editor violates the copyright policy by committing a copyright infringement.

Hence, I suggest we use the terminology copyright infringement, seen in green above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m aware of the definitions, but I don’t see an argument there in favor of your wording. It is copyright that is being taken seriously, and the blocking is the consequences of infringement, *because* we take copyright seriously. Mathglot (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Warning template for breaking templates

Moved from WP:VPR

 – Sdkb ^talk 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there currently a user warning template about users breaking templates? I see a lot of that in Recent Changes and I don't want to leave a handwritten note every time I warn a user who breaks a template. 2003 LN6 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Would {{uw-test}} be sufficient for your purposes? I wouldn't want a user warning about breaking templates to become a sort of trout for more experienced template editors. Sdkb ^talk 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Should Template:Uw-copyright-img only be for own images?

The way the main body of Template:Uw-copyright-img is worded suggests it's meant only for cases where the warning editor can reasonably conclude that the image being warned against is made by the uploader. Yet the opening sentence An image you uploaded appears to be copyrighted content borrowed from another website., does not take this into account, nor is any other path of action for cases where the uploader does not have the rights to redistribute the image. Should we retool this template to focus only on this case, or add a path of action in case they do not? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't read it the same way you did. All the stuff about being the image creator is prefixed by "If you are the copyright holder..." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht I suppose that's fair; but it's also a common mistake for new users to upload copyrighted images thinking that we can use fair use the same way as any other website. Might it be better to add a "If you are not the copyright holder" section, with a link to WP:NFCC and anything relevant? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 I can see the logic in adding a "If you're not the copyright holder" sentence to the end. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably take me a bit to finalise what will go onto that but for a start, "If you are not the copyright holder, you may not have been aware that "fair use" is not in itself a valid cause to use non-free content on Wikipedia." Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:uw-spamublock

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)

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)

Good nitpick, fixed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

 Done -- 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:
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)

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)

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? --Yodin^T 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully

 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)

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)

@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)

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)

Template:Uw-softerblock

−

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects

+

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects.

Just a small copyedit for template editors to do. Template in question is lacking a period. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done SilverLocust 💬 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Uw-copyright-new

Does anyone else think that saying Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing in {{uw-copyright-new}} is a bit BITEy? This is supposed to be the "gentler" message for people who don't know they're doing anything wrong. There's always {{uw-copyright}} for people who should know better. We don't even allude to blocking in {{uw-v1}}, {{uw-blp2}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-npa2}}, etc. All of those are more often than not given to editors who likely do know they're up to no good. But the public's perception of copyright is something like "it's on the web so it's public domain". Education is critical, but do we have to jump to threats on the first offense? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions either way. I don't interpret that as a threat, but rather as a cautionary note that isn't emphasized in any way, and I think copyvios are serious enough (I'd say they're more serious than the other warnings cited) that maybe mentioning the potential for being blocked should be included in the first warning. That said, if other editors disagree, I won't make a fight over it. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a copyright violation is very serious for Wikipedia and needs a warning that conveys what will happen if one keeps introducing such material. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing for Template:Uw-spam1

Well, I just learned that I had used this template incorrectly because I was unaware that Template:Uw-elinbody existed. However, I was still wondering if something should be added to this template to inform users of WP:NOELBODY since editors who add inappropriate external links also frequently insert them into the body of an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing of Uw-ew

The template currently reads:

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This wording is too weak—we should change it too:

Do not edit war even if you are right.

This is what's right. Even if you are right in a content dispute and will be proven right in the end, you should not edit war. The usual exceptions apply, of course, like reverting vandalism and enforcing arbitration provisions. Air on White (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Another tweak on Template:uw-spamublock

I suggested this a ways back. In this version, I've numbered the required steps, in the probably vain hope that users will understand at least a tiny bit more often. I'd like to implement it; any objections? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is going to sound vaguely pedantic, but I wonder whether the wording should be modified to make it more clear that a user must follow all of the steps rather than just picking the one they most prefer. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not pedantic at all; that's exactly the problem I'm trying to address. I'd hoped my previous change would improve things in that regard (you must..and...and...and...) but there's still room for improvement. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You could just make it, "you must include all of the following". I think that would satisfy my concern. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try just that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I did both. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Spamblock redirects

• {{spamblock}} => {{Uw-soablock}}
• {{uw-spamblock}} => {{Uw-sblock}}

Recently I discovered that "spamblock" and "uw-spamblock" have different targets. I'd like to file an RFD, asking that they both be targeted to the same place, but I don't want to mess up everyone who uses one or the other, and as a substitution of a redirect, I can't figure out how to track usage of the redirects. Can anyone help me know if both are used significantly, or if one is used more widely than the other? I initially asked at WP:AN, since we admins are the main ones using block templates, but someone there reminded me to ask people here too. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Spam blocking warning templates jlwoodwa (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibility for excluding appealing instructions on block templates?

I noticed that most (if not all) of the block templates included an instruction for the blocked user to appeal, with no provision to exclude it from the template when adding to the user's talk page. Since the possibility for appeals to be accepted are very low (especially so with vandals), would it be possible to have an option to exclude such message in order to discourage them from doing so?

- NotCory (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Have you considered that we care about not improperly applying sanctions, and so resolving the smaller number of false positives is clearly worth the entire process? This is obviously just the plain communication that's necessary to a robust and honest process. It is comparatively rare for an appeal to be initiated, and it usually does not require much extra work if it's clearly going to be denied. Remsense诉 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: parametrize "one or more of your contributions may have been removed"

 Courtesy link: Template:Uw-vandalism1/sandbox
 Courtesy link: Template:Contributions phrase

Do you ever wish you could be more forthright and less wishy-washy than saying, "one or more of your contributions may have been removed" when you place a user warning template that contains that phrase? As if you didn't know how many edits you are talking about, or forgot whether you removed them or not? I know I do.

I propose to enhance the line "one or more of your contributions may have been removed" in the other user warning templates that have it, to make it variable under parameter control, and allow the following options, in addition to the current default:

• avoid the "may" conditional, so it says "contributions have been removed";
• use the singular when only one edit is involved, so it says "contribution has been removed"; and
• indicate how many edits you mean (when it matters), instead of the hand-wavy, "one or more contributions".

The current, vague wording makes it sound very template-y, more so than is necessary. I use these templates, and it has always irked me to leave such a vague statement. As a result, the great majority of the time I make two edits on their page: one to subst the template, and a second one to fix it, so it is worded more accurately. That is wasteful of my time, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

It would be fairly easy to remedy this. As proof of concept, I have added a possible sandbox implementation of this proposal to {{uw-vandalism1/sandbox}}, which adds the new parameter |number= to support the parametrizable contributions phrase. Documentation of the new parameter is available at the end of the Usage section at {{Uw-vandalism1/sandbox}}. (If adopted, the doc could be expanded if needed, or shortened to just a link to explanation elsewhere.) The variable phrase is provided by template {{contributions phrase}}; testcases for it are {{contributions phrase/testcases}}. Feedback sought, and welcome. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, given that those who don't want to use it don't have to use it and it will clearly be useful to some people. I'll bet that this could be integrated with tools like Twinkle as well, given that the tools certainly know what they've done. I certainly agree with you about not loving the current wording (but I don't see "may" used in any of the templates you link as you seem to suggest, though it is used in some other ones like Template:Uw-npa1 which don't include "one or more...").

I would suggest that the number field should probably accept any text, so that people can choose to use whatever word they feel is most appropriate or just personally prefer, given that there are so many things that could go there (some, a few, etc., in addition to the ones it currently supports).

The only other issue I see is that one/1 being passed does not necessarily imply it was the only contribution they made to the page: I think "only" should be the only input that results in "your recent contribution" rather than "___ of your recent contributions". Tollens (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using AFC

Various policies and guidelines tell conflicted or paid editors to use WP:AFC.

On {{uw-coi}}, shouldn't:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;

say something like:

other than in the Draft namespace (where you should declare your CoI), avoid avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;

(which could be split over two bullet points)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I prefer it as it is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference; it's a matter of giving (new) users correct and relevant information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Uw-block edit request for dark mode compatibility

Please merge changes at Template:Uw-block/sandbox so future substitutions are dark mode compatible. You can also check testcases (Template:Uw-block/testcases). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2024

Currently, {{uw-editsummary2}} uses File:Information.svg with the empty argument |link=, preventing it from linking to its information page. According to Help:Pictures § Links, since the file's CC BY-SA license requires attribution, the image should link to its information page. Therefore, I think it should be changed from:

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon|link=]]

to:

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]

jlwoodwa (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed {{uw-editsummary}} also had this issue, I have fixed it as described above. {{uw-editsummary2}} still needs this fix. Tollens (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the license fix. It's unfortunate that it's necessary, though — from a usability standpoint, it's not very helpful to have a link to an icon file page in a notice. Sdkb ^talk 21:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these links are annoying as a user, I've clicked them by accident before and it is very confusing to get suddenly sent to the media viewer. It would be great if a CC0 icon set could be found or created to replace the ones often used for these templates, since it wouldn't require any attribution whatsoever. I'm sure such icons probably exist but am also nearly certain that changing these very commonly-used icons would make a non-zero amount of people unreasonably upset. Tollens (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the information icon currently displayed on the side of the closed edit request template in this section, for instance, is public domain (File:Information icon4.svg). Tollens (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminder template for undue detail per WP:BALANCE?

It's possible that a majority of edits I have to routinely revert are that aren't covered by a template are substantial additions of sourced, verifiable, but deleterious material that is some combination of tangential, excessively detailed, redundant, or otherwise irreparably undue as to unbalance the coverage or coherence of the article. {{uw-fringe1}} is the closest, but is obviously not appropriate in most cases described above. Perhaps the template can standardize the common suggestions to move the content to a more specific article, more briefly summarize it in context, or compare with how analogous content is treated across several related articles Remsense ‥ 论 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Templates Lang1 through Lang4

{{lang1}}, {{lang2}}, {{lang3}} and {{lang4}}, which are redirects to different user warning templates, have been nominated for discussion or deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19#Template:Lang1. Please leave any comments you have there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New template?

Is there any way we can create a template regarding people who comment on closed discussions? Because I ran into that problem a couple weeks ago and had to use a generic level 2 disruptive editing template and append a message onto it; when I think a level 2 template specifically for commenting on closed/archived discussions would have been a lot more appropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this happening often enough that there's really a need for a template? It seems to me you could just leave a message saying something to the effect of, "Please don't comment on discussions once they have been closed/archived. Thanks!" DonIago (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll get back to you on it. That particular editor had done so twice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: new uncited-content template

It used to be popularly understood, even by non-editors, that a {{cn}} tag meant the tagger thought the statement was unverifiable, not just uncited.

I'd like to propose this draft new template. I've noticed an increasing number of editors are deleting content they think is accurate and verifiable. They wrongly think all uncited content must be removed, not just WP:BLP content. This is not what policy says.

New editors often add uncited content. When uncited content mostly got cited or tagged, editor numbers were growing exponentially. When it mostly gets deleted, editors numbers decline or just about stay steady.[1] More fixing and tagging of uncited content could significantly increase editor retention.

My goal is to give recipients information about what policy is, and why, and what the alternatives to deletion are.

Crit and suggestions very welcome! HLHJ (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting templating the regulars, or is this only intended to be used when it's newer editors who are removing unsourced content? DonIago (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly new editors and even IPs I've seen removing unsourced content (I once saw an IP which reverted very solid unsourced content on Japanese furniture by an admin living in Japan; I confidently restored it). If a regular wrote or behaved in a way that convinced me they believed they needed to remove content they thought was unsourced but otherwise fine, then I suppose an informational template would be actually informative, and hope it would therefore not be resented. I'd be slower to assume ignorance in the case of an experienced editor, but I'm still finding corners of the wiki where I am ignorant, so I'm not offended when people tell me stuff I might not know. The rvv stuff is a bit obvious, but I think it's needed as a counterbalance. I can't promise no-one will ever misuse this template, but I can hope... HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan. Speaking from experience, I think editors who are willing to remove unsourced content already face a great deal of pressure if/when they do so on a regular basis, and I think templating newer editors who are presumably operating in good faith in this manner is just going to lead to more editors who are afraid to touch unsourced content lest they get sanctioned for doing so. If we could guarantee this template would only be used in cases of egregious overreach I might feel differently, but there's no such guarantee of that. As such, I think while it might be understandable to advise editors in cases where one feels they're unnecessarily removing unsourced content, I don't think we should routinize and depersonalize the process.

I guess my other question is in regards to when this template is intended to be used. I feel there's a difference between newly added unsourced content where the adding editor can be identified, and unsourced "stable" content. If an editor is removing uncontroversial "stable" content for lacking sources, then I would agree that there were probably better options available, such as tagging it. If an editor is focusing on newly added content though (as I do), then I have much less of an issue with it being removed if the editor who added it is being asked to provide a source in the process; indeed, I think this is one of the primary ways that many editors become familiar with the general need to source content when adding it.

TL;DR I'm not comfortable with the template presently, but might support a version clearly intended to be used only in cases of egregious removals of unsourced content in cases where the unsourced content had also been in the article for a significant amount of time. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah. In that case I agree with you; the template is clearly not saying what I meant it to say. I want to encourage editors to ask other editors to provide sources. I agree that this is an essential part of teaching new editors. Clearly the template needs a drastic re-write. Thank you very much for the feedback.

The research evidence cited here seems to say that it's significantly more effective to teach sourcing by promptly tagging unsourced new content than by removing it and then trying to engage with the editor. Evidence is that most new editors struggle, and indeed fail, to use talk pages. They also mostly don't understand that reverted edits are still accessible in the page history. But they often check back repeatedly to look at the content they added. If the content is newly-added, and another editor tags or improves it right away, the new editor is likely to see that and respond, usually by fixing up the content or adding more content (following the model they have been shown) and they are much more likely to keep editing. I want to encourage prompt criticism and correction, and I want to encourage it in its most effective forms.

Of course sometimes prompt deletion is unavoidable, and I want to encourage that, too.

I agree that the template should not threaten sanctions; it's intended to be informational. Sanctions are not a suitable remedy for ignorance.

Perhaps a flowchart-like form would work better? Something vaguely like:

Does the imperative makes this sound patronising? The very basic level of some of the content? It's hard to write something that is clear to the newest editors without splaining anyone.

I'm mostly worried about editors (often with semi-automated tools) regularly deleting stuff with comments like "good content but needs sources, sorry", "probably true but removed cuz uncited", or just "removing unsourced content" (people making similar statements in discussions can just be replied to, templates not needed). In some cases a closer look shows that it's unverifiable, or BLP, or some such, but sometimes an editor will delete a lot of well-written, really easy-to-cite content, without any attempt at engaging a new editor, and will even indicate that they don't like doing this but think it's their duty, because unsourced content cannot be allowed in Wikipedia, even temporarily. I want to tell them there are alternatives. Perhaps we can narrow the template scope accordingly. HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a few templates I would like to have but know shouldn't exist, and this is one of them. We only have standardized uw templates for fairly straightforward consequences of P&G, and it should likely stay that way. Having a direct extemporaneous conversation explaining "yes WP:BURDEN says what it says, but think about what we're trying to accomplish here" etc. will help users understand more than boilerplate could in this specific instance. Editors who don't learn how not to disrupt the encyclopedia are going to run into trouble in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, maybe a template isn't the best format for correcting the misconception I'm trying to correct. I admit I was hoping the mere existence of such a template would reduce the need for its use. An essay seems inadequate, though, and conversation doesn't always work. People are understandably very reluctant to give up on this misconception if they've removed a lot of content on that basis, and telling them it discourages new editors increases their reluctance to believe they didn't have to do it. HLHJ (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

They wrongly think all uncited content must be removed, not just WP:BLP content. This is not what policy says. It doesn't have to be removed, but it may be removed per WP:BURDEN. I do not see a problem here that cannot be covered by {{uw-bite}}. Cremastra (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there are cases where we can say it's bad that they're removing it, and WP:BURDEN is essentially a fig leaf enabling a certain compulsive behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 13:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia

Do we have a warning template for people who cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles? I have looked, and cannot find one, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: There's the {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} set; it says "you didn't provide a reliable source" - if they complain, explain that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, directing them to WP:CIRCULAR and possibly WP:SPS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for a template specifically referring to the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Like this? User:Pigsonthewing/uw-wpsource1. Mathglot (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but it turns out that what I wanted was {{Uw-circular}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Template:Uw-circular

Ah, that is useful, but the name is obscure. I'll create a redirect for it under {{uw-wpsource}} (which is where I looked), and if you would please create one for whatever search terms you used in trying to find it initially, that would help others in the same boat. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

More fine tuning: Template:Uw-spamublock

I've sandboxed a test version of Uw-spamublock. Only difference is that I've bolded the mandatory steps in my perhaps quixotic quest to help affected users understand that the username is not the primary problem. I'll implement it in a couple days if there are no squeaks or moans. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing note in warnings

There is only one level for this, which might be a bit strong for new editors Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Can we get a lighter level, similar to how there are multiple levels for vandalism? Bogazicili (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)