Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page

    New block templates to go with certain "Uw-" multi-level warnings:

    [edit]

    I am creating new user block templates for certain actions that there are multi-level warnings for. Examples include:

    Mario662629 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mario662629: You're not an administrator. Why would you need these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why, but I'm also worried about something bad happening to my account because of this. Anyways, this might be done just to have a block template for every multi-level user warning. Mario662629 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mario662629: When an administrator blocks a user, they select an option from the following list: 
    [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]
[[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]
[[WP:Copyright violations|Copyright infringement]]
Creating [[WP:Attack page|attack pages]]
Violations of the [[WP:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy
Persistent addition of [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|unsourced]] content
Creating [[WP:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] or other inappropriate pages
Using Wikipedia for [[WP:Spam|promotion]] or [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]] purposes
[[WP:Spam|Promotion]] / [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]]-only account
[[WP:Edit warring|Edit warring]]
Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]
[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]
[[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or violations of the [[WP:Harassment|harassment]] policy
Making [[WP:No legal threats|legal threats]]
[[WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|Arbitration enforcement]]
[[WP:CTOP|Contentious topic]] restriction
[[WP:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]
Abusing [[WP:Sockpuppetry|multiple accounts]]
Repeatedly triggering the [[WP:Edit filter|edit filter]]
[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|Sockpuppetry]]
Long-term abuse
Clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]]
Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked
{{anonblock}}
{{anonblock}} <!-- Likely a school based on behavioral evidence -->
{{school block}}
{{rangeblock}}
{{blocked proxy}}
{{uw-upeblock}} <!-- Undisclosed paid editing for advertising or promotion -->
{{uw-ublock}} <!-- Username violation, soft block -->
{{uw-uhblock}} <!-- Username violation, hard block -->
{{uw-causeblock}} <!-- Username represents a non-profit, soft block -->
{{uw-ublock-wellknown}} <!-- Username represents a well-known person, soft block -->
{{uw-ublock-double}} <!-- Username closely resembles another user, soft block -->
{{uw-uhblock-double}} <!-- Attempted impersonation of another user, hard block -->
{{uw-softerblock}} <!-- Promotional username, soft block -->
{{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->
{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}} <!-- editor only attempts to add blacklisted links, see [[Special:Log/spamblacklist]] -->
{{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->
{{CheckUser block}}
{{checkuserblock-wide}}
{{checkuserblock-account}}
{{Tor}}
{{webhostblock}}
{{colocationwebhost}}
{{OversightBlock}}
    Your first two are not among these, and your third is covered by {{subst:Uw-disruptblock}}. The blocking policy goes into further detail. There is no one-to-one match between user warnings and block reasons, and there is not intended to be. I don't see why you might worry about something bad happening to your account. Have you been served warnings about any of these three potential issues? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mario662629 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you're talking about templates on user talk pages. What I am saying is that each message usually pairs with a block reason. For instance, if an admin blocks with a reason of Vandalism, they will serve a {{subst:uw-vblock}}. Gaming the system is not, of itself, a reason to block.
    What I want to know is why you want them to be created (and I see that you have begun creating them yourself) when you are not, at present, an administrator. If we were short of appropriate block messages, an existing experienced administrator would surely have created them, but only when absolutely necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-coi

    [edit]

    Imo this template's output text is verbose and difficult to understand. Even for me, who's familiar with Wikipedia's COI policies and is a native English speaker, it's hard to parse. I think it could be significantly reworded to be more digestible even for English as second language speakers. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't really seem that way to me, but English is my primary language so perhaps I'm simply unable to see how it can be problematic. Are there changes you'd like to propose? DonIago (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template: Uw-blockindefnotalk

    [edit]

    Could you please do not italicize the word 'also' in the message to ensure the consistency? Thanks. 14.245.39.26 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: The three italicised instances of the word "also" only occur when preceded by the word "See", which is also italicised. I don't see why one should be de-italicised and not the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing (?) level 4 warning template

    [edit]

    I've noticed that there is no level 4 warning for introducing incorrect pronouns, Uw-pronouns. I've used level 4 vandalism to substitute. I wondered if there was a reason for only level 1,2 and 3? Knitsey (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Template:Uw-or" listed at Redirects for discussion

    [edit]

    The redirect Template:Uw-or has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 29 § Template:Uw-or until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

    [edit]

    I'm thinking we should add a parameter for edits that are obviously not neutral instead of edits that merely seem to not be neutral. Something that would change the wording slightly. E.g. "Your edit to X was not neutral in nature" vs. "your edit to X was reverted because it did not seem neutral". Thoughts? » Gommeh (he/him) 17:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. This is not an uncontroversial edit request. Level 1 notifications nearly always assume good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-chat

    [edit]

    The wording on this is somewhat outdated with today's Internet ("chat rooms" and "forums" are very 1990s/2000s) and with the reasons people make junk edits to talk page.

    Suggest adding verbiage that talk pages are not a search engine and not ChatGPT. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Usually if I'm removing comments for UW-chat reasons, and it's not blatant nonsense, it's not because people are using them as a search engine or ChatGPT, it's because people are making comments unrelated to improving the article. "Man, I love Star Wars! But what happened to Luke's lightsaber after Cloud City?" or such. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: Template:Uw4im

    [edit]

    Switch to semantic markup: <b> → <strong>

    −
    '''only warning'''
    		+
    {{strong|only warning}}
    −
    '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''
    		+
    {{strong|[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice}}

    Cf. MOS:NOBOLD

    The text appears the same (in bold), but this carries additional semantic meaning, e.g. a screen reader may use a different voice for 'strong' text.

    — W.andrea (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC) edited 20:09[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: Template:Uw-delete4im

    [edit]

    Add context:

    −
    {{{reason|remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia}}}
    		+
    {{{reason|remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]}}}

    I'm suggesting this because I had an unfortunate situation earlier where I used this template and the user thought I was forbidding them from editing the page (Why I can't edit those pages?). In retrospect, I should have used {{Uw-delete4}} instead, which already includes this verbiage.

    — W.andrea (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: uw-delete series

    [edit]

    Add link to WP:Content removal on {{Uw-delete4im}}:

    −
    remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia
    		+
    [[WP:Content removal|remove or blank page contents or templates]] from Wikipedia

    Same for all the other uw-delete templates:

    {{uw-delete4}}

    −
    remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]
    		+
    [[WP:Content removal|remove or blank page content or templates]] from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]

    {{uw-delete3}}

    −
    blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation
    		+
    [[WP:Content removal|blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials]] from Wikipedia without adequate explanation

    {{uw-delete2}}

    −
    Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].
    		+
    Please do not [[WP:Content removal|remove content or templates]] from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].

    {{uw-delete1}} already has this link.

    — W.andrea (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought this would be totally uncontroversial since it's just adding a link and {{uw-delete1}} already includes it. No? — W.andrea (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there may be an argument that editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature. It's arguably linking an easily understandable phrase. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    linking an easily understandable phrase

    My rationale for linking it isn't "this could be misunderstood", it's "we have a page that provides more details about this". — W.andrea (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature.

    Note that {{Uw-delete4im}} is an "only warning" so editors wouldn't have received a level 1 warning. — W.andrea (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why anyone would be delivering an "only warning" if an editor hadn't been warned about the same behavior in the past. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An "only warning" means they only get one warning. Are you thinking of a final warning?
    If it helps, I issued an only warning on the 18th because a user out of the blue removed a large chunk of the article Tuvan throat singing, marked it as "minor", didn't write adequate edit summaries, and seemed to be specifically erasing the contributions of Mongolians.
    — W.andrea (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not. I don't think editors typically issue only warnings to editors who have never received warnings previously, unless whatever they did to merit the warning is so incredibly blatant and unambiguous that it's simply impossible to believe the editor didn't know it would be considered problematic.
    In the case you described, if they had no prior warnings on their Talk page, I'd probably still give them a level 3 or 4 for a first-time offense. Either one is significant enough to result in a block if they continue their behavior. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see. — W.andrea (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request 20 June 2025

    [edit]

    I just saw that User:CyberTheTiger had accidentaly removed the uw-blank warning templates after they added the deleted multi-level edit warring templates, summary saying that it accidentally pasted it. Can someone bring back the uw-blank warnings to the Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates page for consistency? Thanks.

    Sorry, i cannot post the differences due to some problems in text rendering. 92.53.21.142 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    uw-disruptive4im

    [edit]

    Hello. I wanted to tell you guys that uw-disruptive4im should be created. The reason was to notify the users the only warning if they disrupt Wikipedia again. For an example, {{subst:uw-disruptive4im}} would produce:

    This is your only warning; if you disrupt Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

    This template will be useful to warn these users continuously with disruptive editing, and it will be the only warning before the user gets blocked, similar to other 4im templates. 92.53.21.142 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really see the need. Template:uw-disruptive4 is already a redirect to Template:uw-generic4 which basically says the same thing you've proposed here. Put another way, if we were going to create such a template, I think a redirect would suffice anyway. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace&oldid=1296754526"