Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

Change web site -> website, more common and correct spelling and usage. 118.99.116.249 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Where specifically is this in reference to? Only website is ever used either on the talk page or in any of the templates. Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spamublock is the only warning/block template I can find containing "web site". Tollens (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I fixed that one then. Remsense ‥ 论 23:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Er, Remsense, the IP did specify Template:Uw-spamublock in their original post, which somebody subsequently messed with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Some day, I will learn to read. Remsense ‥ 论 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Uw-tilde

Should {{Uw-tilde}} be updated to include information about the reply tool? Seems like it has really caught on with the community, it signs posts for you, but it cannot be used if someone does not sign their post, so not only is there no sig but you have to open the eidting window instead of using this convenient tool, make sigs even more important than they already were. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just Step Sideways, feel free to add a link to it to the § See also section (which maybe would benefit from folding). Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we develop a userblock-wellknown bad faith template?

In my very brief Admin career, I've run across two users who had the name of well-known living persons and were making promotional edits for that person. Ideally, I'd give a bad-faith well-known username block notice, but the only one we have is good-faith (see the table at to see the empty table cell). Can we develop one that combines living person username confirmation requirements with disruptive/promotional editing language for hard blocks?

That is, take Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown and add bad faith/hard block language to it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If you can edit Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown/sandbox and replace it in its entirety with the wording that you think the template ought to emit in that case in plain text format, I will attempt to help adjust the template to do so. If you want the language to come out of the existing template, we will need a new parameter to flag that; what should be call it, |badfaith=yes? Something else? Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll do the editing later today. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like tomorrow instead. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we write Template:uw-vandalism1 in a more formal tone?

In the user warning vandalism series of user message templates, I noticed that Template:uw-vandalism1 uses contractions and ends with "Thanks", but the rest of the user warning vandalism series templates do not. I propose we could rewrite Template:uw-vandalism1 as follows, using User:Example in this instance.

Hello, I am Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thank you.

Please let me know if this rewriting would work and if people could take users who post these messages more seriously. A more formal tone could convey seriousness. I think people would be more likely to heed the notice. Z. Patterson (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: Have you looked at the other level 1 templates, such as Template:Uw-unsourced1? Most (if not all) end in either "Thanks" or "Thank you", because they assume good faith. If it's clear that the user has begun with a bad faith edit, you don't need to begin the chain with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, you can go straight to {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} - or higher, if necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: unblock|reason=Your reason here

We use this same language in many block templates. I'm sure somebody has pointed out that the net result of this is very frequent unblock requests that follow the instructions we give the user quite literally; they add exactly that text to the bottom of the talk page. Though sometimes it's just the blocked miscreant being obtuse, as often as not, when asked to actually give a reason, they give a reason. Why are we wasting our time and theirs with this? It sets us up to be chastising the user for following our instructions literally. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we really wasting our time? The key part before even asking the user to use the unlock template is they understand why they were blocked. We have the same set of instructions for any other template like XfC and XfD regardless of user experience. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete 175.157.61.175 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Or you may simply create a new account for editing

The last sentence ends with, "or you may simply create a new account for editing". This almost sounds like a solicitation of WP:SOCKING, something the new user is almost surely unaware of as something to be avoided. Rather, it would be better if this sentence said this instead:

• ...or you may simply abandon this username, and [[WP:REGISTER|create a new account]] for editing.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of what? DonIago (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's {{subst:uw-username}} Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We should change LLM misuse level 4 in the table in Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates

Right now, it indicates that the warning template should be {{subst:uw-generic4}} but we already have uw-ai4 for that purpose - should the table be edited? Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I did it myself - if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and we'll discuss. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we write Template:uw-vandalism1 to encourage the reader to put their energy into good use?

I propose adding "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, please be bold and improve it! If it makes the encyclopedia better, it is less likely to be undone." after the reminder on the unconstructive edit. The reason is that vandals often want to leave their mark, we are aiming to provide them the good path to do so. This is in the spirit of a current RfC to rewrite a friendlier version of WP:BITE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Kho, see {{uw-subtle1}}. I would think if we are going to make any changes to a vandalism template, it would be to that one, and not to {{uw-vandalism1}}. Another way to be friendlier, is if you believe that the user in question is trying to get it right but failing (as opposed to a malicious user or troll), then leave them a Welcome message on their Talk page, which will mitigate the BITEY-ness of the vandalism template, as well as provide them a bunch of links to helpful pages that will show them the path forward. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I am actually picturing a pure vandal here. I am not endeavoring to teach them about Wikipedia, or to be civil at them.

However, WP:VANDAL shows that most vandalism are juvenile vandalism. They are here to have fun, they mean no harm.

I pray they who initially thought "let's screw around", could be persuaded that being reverted sucks, while making bold good-faith improvements would turn out good for them. Hence, my proposed two-sentence addition.

Remember, a lot of these juvenile vandals represent a large part of our loyal readership who "tend to be pretty smart people" and they bring in fresh perspectives to Wikipedia when they choose to contribute in good-faith. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Kho, if you know templating language, why don't you propose a specific example in the sandbox? And if you don't, you can just enter your proposed text of such a template below. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I created it in my talk page [1][2], it was modified from the source found using view source on the template page, does that look right? Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I used the wording "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, you may be bold and improve it. If it makes the encyclopedia better, it is less likely to be undone!" - The reason is that I want them to get excited about not getting reverted, rather than the bold edits themselves. This will set a great mindset when they start becoming constructive, but still stumble upon a few rules and get reverted, they would want to avoid making the same mistakes to get their work kept. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a user warning for cuckoo editing?

WP:CUCKOO editing (inserting unsourced statements in between supported claims and citations) is disruptive but I don't think a warning for disruptive editing or vandalism is the best fit often, and nor does an unreferenced editing tag say it either. Should a set of warnings for Cuckoo editing be introduced, or added to the unreferenced editing user warning? I'm not sure how common it is but when it happens a template would make things easier for those reviewing cuckoo edits. Departure– (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this depends on how often editors here encounter the cuckoo variant of Uw-unsourced. Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The AGF tag would be uw-unsourced. And there already a guideline, WP:INTEGRITY, without needing to resort to an essay. —Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-upeblock

If the user can become unblocked by finally responding to the inquiry they receive regarding paid editing, this information should also be stated on this template. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2025

Move up guidelines link.

Also clarify link text (cf. MOS:LINKCLARITY).

−

I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our [[Wikipedia:External links|guidelines]] about links.

+

I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take a look at our [[Wikipedia:External links|guidelines about external links]]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm here, shouldn't the {{redirect}} be on the documentation page instead of being noincluded in the template itself? Cf. {{Citation_needed}}. — W.andrea (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. Also, please remember that template Uw-spam1 is always substituted, which means that these edits will apply only to future usages. Past usages will not be changed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Changes to talk page formatting

Twice in two days I've tried to add warnings to IP user talk pages and the formatting comes up visual, and the template doesn't unfold the way it used to. My signature is written in the visual space before it's even posted, and the final product just shows the text form the "what to type" column on this page. Does this happen with anyone else? I would like to try to not post extra corrections on user's talk pages but changing the habits of thousands of wikipedians seems harder than getting an admin to change it back to teh way it used to be. Please discuss. Kire1975 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2025

Remove sentence about getting blocked, most other level 2 warnings leave it out Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed edit

@Star Mississippi @Liz @Justlettersandnumbers I'm proposing that the level 3 template gets edited so that the sentence doesn't just say "Please stop", that the warning is part of the same sentence, because as it is right now I feel that it's too hard of a tone of voice, so I'm proposing to edit it to make the tone of voice softer. To say something like "Please stop [doing your action]. If you continue to do so...". (I can't edit it since it's protected) Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Whichi template @CyberTheTiger? I'd say get consensus and then a template editor will take care of it for you. cc @Justlettersandnumbers (Liz doesn't use pings, CTT) Star Mississippi 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This one:

{{subst:uw3}} Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this, currently "Please stop." sounds very vague, it reads like asking the recipient to stop everything. Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've seen this particular template. Are editors using this without providing any additional context? Every level 3 warning I've ever issued provided more detail than a generic, "Please stop." DonIago (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

but it continues after that. What I want is to move the part after "if you continue to..." to the lead sentence as I feel that this would soften the tone. We don't need as hard of the tone as it is now. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that level 3 warnings are only supposed to be used in cases where an editor has already exhausted good faith (either through blatant disruption or by failing to heed lower level warnings), I don't really have a problem with it being hard. This warning should be used for effect, as an editor who continues to act in ignorance of it can indeed be blocked. Level 4 warnings are an option but not a requirement prior to an editor being blocked. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

but, for example, an editor gave me a level 3 warning for the Manual of Style even though I was very unfamiliar with the rules for bluelinking (see this discussion for example.) The level 1 warning there was completely a good faith edit; I had put what turned out to be an invalid justification. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I generally will not escalate the warning level for unrelated forms of disruption (e.g. someone once adds unsourced content, then refactors an unrelated Talk page discussion). I'd hope admins wouldn't issue blocks in cases where an editor is receiving escalating warnings for unrelated issues, unless the quantity of warnings itself becomes noteworthy. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

While I support better detail in the lead sentence for the notification - at the same time I'd have to say a lvl3 notification should have a pretty firm tone. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that Template:Uw3 is not listed at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace, I would say that it's not intended for direct use. It is, in fact a core template, around which specific-issue templates such as {{subst:Uw-vandalism3}} have been built. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 February 2025

Change from "Please stop." (as a single sentence) to "Please stop [doing your action]." My intention is to have a softer tone of voice. See this discussion that I started, and this thing I had with Waxworker. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that discussion shows a clear consensus for change. In fact there was quite a mixed response to your suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. As it says in the first sentence under § Usage, This is a meta template, meaning it should never be placed directly on a user talk page. It's clear from the pagename (albeit not from the doc) that it is intended to be an incubator or model for level 3 templates. By definition as a level 3, its tone should not be softer. It has a copy-pastable core from which one could save time creating a new, level 3 template, so is worth keeping on that basis. Instead of changing the template, why not just trash the documentation and rewrite it to make that clearer? Also would not oppose a modification (like enclosing it in <noinclude>s) that cause it to emit nothing, in case a user inadvertently places it on a user talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Link edit to Uw-blockindef

Currently, Template:Uw-blockindef has the text "blocked indefinitely" with two links next to each other. Could/should this be changed to "blocked indefinitely" (one link, per MOS:SOB)? I am bad at usernames (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

They go to different targets. The overarching blocking policy for the first one, and the specific indef section for the second. Might be useful in that context for the blockee? --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree that SEAOFBLUE is a problem, and it should be one link. Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Updating uw-Upeblock

Template:Uw-upeblocks that rely on private evidence can be appealed to Arbcom instead of just onwiki, but the template makes no note of this; in some cases, it might be more ideal than appealing onwiki. Is there any objection to me adding a sentence such as "If this block is based on offwiki evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at en-arbcom at wikimedia.org" or whatever? Ping some editors involved in this area for opinions (@Spicy @Joe Roe @331dot). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a reason not to do as you propose. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that we discussed this somewhere and there was a concern (perhaps from Barkeep49?) that being too up-front with the ArbCom appeal option would unduly increase their appeals workload. Can't find it now though. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possible I said that, though I have generally been less concerned about ArbCom handling blocks than many other arbs (I was an impediment for a bit to the current devolution of CU blocks). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Change "Jimbo" to "Example" in the NPOV warning template. RaschenTechner (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

RaschenTechner, why do you think that would be an improvement? Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Because "Example" is usually used and the warned user should not be under the false impression that Jimbo Wales is warning them directly. RaschenTechner (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The warned user never sees "Jimbo" (or "Example"), only their own name. Only the editor placing the template sees it; or more precisely, only the editor about to place the template who goes to the template page to read the documentation beforehand sees it. They see the canonical salutation in the expanded template at the top of the page above the green-shaded Template doc box. So, nobody gets a false impression, and the user only ever sees themself addressed directly by name. Is there another reason? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"Example" is usually used in such templates and "Jimbo" could be changed for consistency reasons. RaschenTechner (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To editor RaschenTechner: the "Example" and "Jimbo" entries are all "<noincluded>" in these templates, which mean they don't appear when the template is placed on a talk page. They actually link to REVISIONUSER, which is the editor who saves the template to a talk page. So if I were to place this template on a talk page, it would read "Hello, I'm Paine Ellsworth...". As for consistency, I checked several of these and sometimes found "Example", sometimes found "Jimbo", and sometimes neither nor anything else was linked to show who placed the template (other than the sig, of course). Thank you for your concerns and your improvements! and keep in mind that there are many other more urgent ways to improve Wikipedia – (sigh) – it sometimes seems like a neverending, uphill battle, doesn't it? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2025 uw-3rr dark mode background and indenting inconsistency

−

30px|left|alt=Stop icon

+

30px|alt=Stop icon

This removes the white background in dark mode that only happens for this warning. That and the indenting is made consistent with {{uw-ew}}, {{uw-spam4}} and {{uw4}}. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Uw-create templates

Template:Uw-create 1–4im state, in various ways, "A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages", with a wikilink to Wikipedia:List of policies. That is less than useful for an editor trying to figure out what they did wrong. I can't think of another page to link to since there are so many PAGs that relate to the creation of pages. I wanted to bring this here before nominating the templates for deletion in case anyone has any ideas. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess my feeling on it is that, while it is vague, an editor who cares to know which PAG are of particular concern can always ask the editor leaving the warning for more information? DonIago (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone subscribes to threads or watches editors' talk pages after they've tagged them, nor do new editors always know about pinging. Given it's so vague, editors should just explain up front why the editors' page creations are bad, not leave them guessing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to the editors who created and use this warning, then. It's not one that I believe I've ever used myself. DonIago (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with voorts here; elucidating a reason for placing it is a must. If it is too much added effort for an editor to add a reason to justify its placement, then the template should not be placed, as a vague and mysterious warning does more harm than good. As far as leaving it to the editors who created it, maybe we should look instead at the occasions where it has actually been placed and examine some of them to see what can be learned. If worthwhile, one could poll (randomly?) some of the recent placers of the template, to see what they think, and find out what would be lost by not having them. (Maybe ping a few here?) Feedback from WP:AFC folks might help, too, although they have their own, well-worn paths for decling/rejecting and not sure they need any of these templates. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The links in that template are indeed inadequate to help a struggling user, and we don't want to spray them with a policy list. What I would suggest, is add a link to Help:Your first article. This page really walks a user through the whole process of new article creation, and links to every needed policy or guideline, at just the point in the narrative where they might need to look at it, in case the help page explanation itself isn't enough.

I have another objection to the template wording: it says, "...so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already)". That is not a likely outcome for a page that "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages". Much more likely is that it gets moved to Draft. The template needs to decide where it stands: if the template is geared solely at hopeless cases, of the type that have been (or would be) rejected (not declined) by WP:AFC, then the wording can stay, but additional wording is needed to clarify. If the template is geared towards all articles that are non-compliant with new article standards, including ones that would get declined at WP:AFC, then the wording about "...will be removed shortly" itself needs to be removed, and mention of draftification as the most likely outcome should be added in its place. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: In this edit, nobody was notified, because there are more than 50. See WP:MENTION. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(Whew; thank goodness for that!)

In the meantime, seven editors have placed the template five or more times, and one over twenty times. We could learn something from their experience. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've used the template before, but I didn't notice that it links to WP:PAG, not an actual page. I started this discussion because I was about to use the template, but then noticed that. I think linking to Help:Your first article is potentially a good idea, but some editors may use this template for people creating inappropriate pages in non-article space, which would make that link unhelpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's find out. See § User experience poll below. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User experience poll

Hello, @RickinBaltimore, Largoplazo, Unbroken Chain, Cunard, and Materialscientist: you appear to be among the active users who have placed the user warning template {{uw-create1}} on User talk pages several times. Could you help this discussion by commenting on your experience with this template? What is your intent when you use it? Is it about giving a user a heads-up about a specific page you have in mind that might deserve Afd, or a more general warning about what pages to create or where, or something else? Do you use it mainly for mainspace articles, or other namespaces? Would it help if a policy or guideline link such as Help:Your first article (or some other) were added to the message? Does the template serve its purpose well (what is its purpose, in your opinion?) and could it be improved? What else should we know about this template? Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)   updated by Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You're taxing my memory. I suspect I haven't used it since I was actively patrolling new pages, which was quite a few years ago. I can't swear to it but it seems like something I would have reserved for speedy deletion cases, perhaps when a user had received several speedy deletion notices and didn't seem to be getting the message. I would have used it for something that was somewhere between editing tests and vandalism or personal attacks, where it looked like the user earnestly intended for it to be an article and simply didn't understand what Wikipedia is (and isn't) for. If my recollection is correct, then I would have relied on the deletion notices to indicate what the problem was in each case.

Well, OK, why don't I just run a search? Examples:

• User talk:Prosniff re Venezwaziland, an article I'd just flagged for G3
• User talk:Nazzyfluffles re Fluffiaans, an article I'd flagged half an hour earlier for A2, and that maybe I'd then taken a look through and realized that it wouldn't have been suitable in English either
• User talk:Alexslash2017 re Figuricci Zahlen but I have no good explanation because, within the space of one minute, I'd posted a problem-welcome about that article, then flagged it for G3, and then left the uw-create1 tag.
• I'm seeing now that I followed almost the same pattern with a lot of users, the difference being that in those cases I posted an ordinary welcome message, not a problem-user one. I think what I had in mind was to put the welcome up first, to be nice and soften the fact that I was about request deletion of their article, but then afterwards I also wanted to make sure they understood to take the deletion as a sign. OH: wait a minnit—did there used to be a mechanism whereby a deletion notice was automatically preceded by a welcome message if the user didn't already have one posted on their page? Largoplazo (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. On a side note, I often do what you do: if I am about to post a warning template, and notice that the page is empty or has no welcome. First I post the welcome (sometimes with param |nothanks=yes if warranted) and then I post my warning, to soften it a bit, and lead with something friendlier, which may help make the medicine go down easier when it is delivered. I like the idea of auto-welcome if none present; we should consider doing that. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Largoplazo, from your response I glean that you use it primarily or solely for articles (mainspace), correct? Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably, I can't make any promises, but that's mostly what I was up to.

Thinking again about my mention of editing tests—one purpose I see in uw-create1 is to serve as the page creation counterpart of uw-test1. The latter isn't suitable because the "has been reverted" part isn't relevant, since page deletion isn't reversion. Largoplazo (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. This is quite helpful. And thanks for starting this poll, Mathglot. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I try and leave those as a less bitey welcome, I think they sound better then I do. Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2025

Change:

• This is a generic template for those UW templates that have no level 4.

to

• This is a generic template for UW template series that have no level-4 template. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 00:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

   Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

uw-disruptive1 and spelling

I note subst:Uw-disruptive1 uses the British spelling "familiarise." Is there any way to get a parameter to use American spelling ("familiarize") for those of us who are from that country and prefer to use American English? 1995hoo (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this for the benefit of the sender of the message, or its recipient? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the sender. If I send a message to someone, I dislike being forced to use British spellings. 1995hoo (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If the recipient is British, might they dislike being forced to read American spellings? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ehhh, you know what, I experimented with it on my sandbox page and realized there's a workaround: You just post the template, then click "Edit" again and correct the spelling. Perhaps not ideal, but does the job. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me to try that before posting the topic here, although I do note many templates do have a parameter allowing the user to set the spelling, so it's not really clear why British spelling is being forced on users here. Whatever. Given that there's a workaround, I don't see any reason to pursue it further, so if someone wants to archive this section, please do. 1995hoo (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 26 March 2025

the Username Hard Blocked template has the phrase "Wikipedia's username policy", whereas the Vandalism and Username block template has the phrase "our" instead of "Wikipedia's username policy". Could somebody please change this from "our" to "Wikipedia's username policy" for consistency? Thanks.

Diff:

−

of our username policy

+

of Wikipedia's username policy

YourGodIsHere32 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

YourGodIsHere32,  Done. Thanks for including the {{textdiff}}, that makes the request clear. P.S., if you make another request, there is no need to bold the entire message. Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-selfrevert-helpful

I've seen users self-revert editing tests when the test edits are actually helpful, such as adding valuable information. This notice would let them know that their edit is constructive and tolerated:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently reverted one of your recent test edits, even though the edit was actually constructive. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 18:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of that rather than just writing a single sentence saying that you think their edit was a good one and worth keeping? JBW (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Uw-controversial – vague, arbitrary, useless?

 Courtesy link: Template:Uw-controversial

I find this template troubling, to the point where I question the value of having it. The wording seems arbitrary:

[O]ne of your edits may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted.

Controversial edit? What the heck is that? One might think that perhaps it is related to our contentious topics procedures—but no. Reading between the lines, what I hear from this message, is:

I didn't like your edit, so I reverted it. If I knew about guidelines and stuff, I woulda linked one, but, well, you know... So I'm just dropping this template before you revert back, to make it look kinda official, and more like you did something wrong and I called you out on it. (Ha, ha, gotcha!)

Later in the message, it talks about correct information which is an entirely different animal than 'controversial', afaic; maybe what they wanted was {{uw-unsourced1}}, or {{uw-hoax}}, or who knows, really.

There is nothing in the documentation like a When to use section, or maybe better, a When not to use section. Maybe it's just a matter of fixing the documentation to explain what it's really for and when to use it, but as it stands now, it seems entirely arbitrary and subject to unfair or annoying templating and abuse. Personally, I can't imagine using it, because I have no idea what it is about, and it seems to be saying, "I just didn't like it". If you were going to add a policy or guideline link to clarify the message, which one would you pick? If you can't decide, that's a red flag. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Will take to Tfd. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 14#Template:Uw-controversial. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Restored from Archive 2; Tfd still active. Mathglot (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Uw-tdel1 and Uw-tdel2

At Template:Uw-tdel1 and Template:Uw-tdel2, there needs to be a line that says maintenance templates should not be removed if there is an active discussion about the issue on the talk page. That's one of the main reasons not to remove a maintenance template per WP:WNTRMT, but the uw templates give the opposite impression. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that either template (currently) mentions the Talk page? DonIago (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd like to remedy. Right now they imply that everything about the maintenance tags is done unilaterally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm not really sure what your concern is. Perhaps you could propose alternate wording that would address your concern? DonIago (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2025

Replace "It's been removed and archived in the page history for now" with "Your edit has been reverted for now" Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Question: Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 9 April 2025

Description of suggested change: Change the icon to the orange round one seen in Template:Uw-2.

Diff:

−

[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]]

+

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

Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger Which warning? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This one:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait on someone else on this, because I'm not really sure if it should be changed or not. There's no series warnings for edit warring, so I think that image is fine. But I'll wait for someone else to take a look at this. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: the OP has not explained why they think the image should be changed, and why the current image is unsuitable — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-removalofreference1 (2, 3 and 4)

Hello, I suggest that the Template:Uw-removalofreference1 and its co-template 2, 3, 4 be created, it will be very helpful as some editors remove references from articles. I've jumped into editors who remove reference(s) from a page without giving a clear or reasonable reason for that. I've created some drafts, see them below:

• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref1
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref2
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref3
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref4

I can create the templates directly but i need further information from others. Thanks. – Raphael 19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

uw-disruptive4im

Hello. I suggest that template:disruptive4im should be created. It should give the only warning for users the next time they disrupt Wikipedia, it should be only used if the user does severe disruptive editing, for example subst:uw-disruptive4im would produce:

This is your only warning; if you disrupt Wikipedia again, as you did on Article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 37.25.86.186 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

uw-editwar templates

CyberTheTiger recently added a set of multi-level templates for edit warring. This seems like a bad idea. Edit warring is fundamentally different from the issues handled by multi-level templates, as called out in WP:UWUL#Single issue warnings: There are also single issue warnings. Single issue warnings generally serve to advise editors of policy breaches that, if repeated, are likely to result in a block. An example of such an act would be edit warring. Differences include:

• Edit warring already has a single-issue template, {{uw-ew}} / {{uw-ewsoft}}.
• Edit warring has a different standard for blockable offenses, WP:3RR.
• Edit warring gets reported to a different noticeboard, WP:AN/EW instead of WP:ANI.

Using multi-level warnings for edit warring would make initial communications easier, but would just lead to confusion further down the line. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are more levels of warning than there are sanctions available.

1. User makes first revert - it happens many times a second, we pass over it. No message is required; if it were, we'd be forever sending out messages.
2. User makes second revert - also quite frequent, we should start a thread on the article talk page in the interests of WP:BRD and might also drop a note on the user's talk page directing them to the article's talk page. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this.
3. User makes third revert - we serve a {{subst:uw-3rr}} directly to the user talk page
4. User makes fourth revert - we block if able to do so, otherwise file a WP:ANEW report

There isn't really any scope for graduated warnings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

There was already an edit war template in the single level. I will revert the users edits 92.55.125.192 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If there aren't any further comments, I'll remove these templates tomorrow. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is done. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Done in what way? Template:Uw-editwar1, Template:Uw-editwar2, Template:Uw-editwar3 and Template:Uw-editwar4 still exist, and I don't see them at WP:TFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Done in that I removed them from this page so no one will find them any more, but I'll raise them at WP:TFD. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Submitted to TfD. See discussion. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding a warning template for multiple issues at once

Recently I've seen several instances where I thought it would be necessary to warn a user for several rule violations at once, e.g. for adding original research and not maintaining a neutral point of view in the same edit. Anyone else think this may be useful? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to other editors on this, but I think there may be an argument that if you're going to give an editor multiple warnings at the same time that perhaps it would be better to write a single message that encapsulates the issues rather than (arguably somewhat rudely) dropping a bunch of different warnings on them. DonIago (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I did some thinking and thought it might end up looking something like this:

{{uw-multiple|Article name here|warning type 1|warning type 2|etc...|}}

I would have no idea how to code a template like that though. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. How would that translate into a single coherent message, especially when the warnings are likely to be different with each use of the template? DonIago (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me - you assumed that what I put above would mean something among the lines of copying the text of a warning template such as {{uw-vandalism1}} into a new template. What I am suggesting is something more like this: "Your edit at (insert article here) appears to have multiple issues: (bullet point list of suspected violations here)". Admittedly I'm not sure how you could implement the warning system here.

So {{uw-multiple|Example article|You added content that does not appear constructive and is suspected of being [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism]].|You [[WP:REMOVAL|deleted content]] without adequately explaining why in your edit summary.}} would turn out something like this:

Hello. One or more of your recent contributions to Example article appears to have multiple issues:

• You added content that does not appear constructive and is suspected of being vandalism.
• You deleted content without adequately explaining why in your edit summary.

Of course the warnings can be as detailed as need be. My goal is to be able to concisely warn a user about an edit they made that violates multiple policies at once.

Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that for that to work we'd need alternate versions of each of the existing warning messages that could then be used for bundling purposes (which also means editors might have concerns about the wording of each message). Not an impossible task, but possibly an unappetizing one, especially when in my experience I'm usually able to find a warning that I feel addresses my primary concerns with an editor's revision and then add supplemental text as needed if there are additional concerns I wish to note. Considering that it's arguable whether leaving templated warnings for people tends to have a net positive effect in any case, maybe it's best to continue to require editors to use a more personal touch if they want to leave a more complicated notice. DonIago (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'd use a template for the most important message, which would probably be the most serious transgression, and use that template's second parameter to note any other issues. For example, {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Example article|You also deleted content without adequately explaining why in your edit summary. Thank you.}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue with that approach is that someone might forget to include information that might be necessary for the user to understand what happened and why it is not allowed, like forgetting a link to a policy or something. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 23:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Even in your example though, it could be argued that the consolidated messages no longer provide sufficient information for the user to understand what happened and why it's not allowed, especially if this is a warning for a newer editor...and most of the time when I use templates, they are indeed for newer editors, since I try to avoid templating the regulars. I also think that leaving a 'laundry list' of warnings for a new editor in one go may seem distinctly more unfriendly than leaving them a single warning, even if you add additional text noting additional concerns, because it looks more like an apathetic form letter.

I should note that there's no reason why you can't explore this on your own for your use and those of other editors who might wish to utilize it; I'm just concerned about a) the mechanics of it (because of the need to create new warning messages to be used with it), and b) whether it might be more off-putting than existing options. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly what I do. DonIago (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

GommehGaming101, the procedure outlined by Redrose64 and echoed by Doniago sounds like a perfect solution; I am going to start following in their footsteps, now. The ability to do this is already there and available via positional param 2, all that is needed now, is to bring it to the attention of prospective template users via the doc page. If you can get consensus for it (or just try a bold edit), this could be added directly to {{Templates notice/inner}} as a new doc page bullet for the common warning template doc page. Perhaps something like this:

If a user has violated multiple guidelines, use the template corresponding to the most serious violation, and mention the other issues using the "additional text" that you can supply in positional param 2; see {{slink||Usage}} above.

This will then appear on the doc page of every user warning template.

It would also be possible to conditionally emit the bullet item only for certain templates and not others. This would require a change to {{Templates notice}} to add new parameter |multipleadvice=yes and pass it through to the /inner template, which would emit the bullet or not, as indicated. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

uw-coi and uw-paid

I think that the {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-paid}} templates can be improved.

In my experience people who read those templates perceive them as an attack, even if it is clear that they have a COI/are being paid.

I don't think that that is the intention behind the templates, and people don't respond in the way we want them to (e.g. they become defensive or hostile, which is counterproductive).

I have some quick drafts that are less likely to illicit a negative response:

• User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI
• User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID

Feel free to edit them, they are drafts and far from perfect. These are just some quick examples to illustrate my point.

What do y'all think? Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I agree 100% with what you say about the existing templates. They are seriously in need of major rewriting. I haven't yet studied your draft replacements, because I'm out of time, but I'll try to remember to come back to them and have a look. JBW (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the overall idea. The new drafts definitely need more links. We shouldn't assume, for example, that new editors know what a talk page is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the bulleting in both originals and your drafts, and I like the bolding in the originals. Definitely worth pursuing. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, are you interested in pursuing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Yes, but I am about as diplomatic as getting trampled by a mammoth and a truly terrible writer. You are a wordsmith, smarter than I am, and this joke of a language is your native one. And you are experienced with getting things done in this area of Wikipedia, while I have to be bold and hope no one notices. I do however know that people almost universally react very negatively when you post uw-coi or uw-paid on their talkpage, as if you insulted their child. And I do not care if someone is getting paid or not, if their edits are not an improvement I am going to revert them anyway. Enforcing the Terms of Service is not my job. I want people to follow the rules, and it is more likely that they do that if I post a template that politely asks them to. Polygnotus (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Also I am not an admin or template editor so I can't edit the template directly. And I have very little experience with the DR process (except in achieving a numerical majority). Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, do you mind if @JBW, @Mathglot, or I edit User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI and User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID, so we can try to incorporate some of these ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Anyone is free to edit any page in my userspace, except vandals. Polygnotus (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Am willing to assist in principle, but short on time at the moment but will contribute as I can. Before we get to it, let me just clarify or ask whether you want to change existing templates by incorporating new wording or other ideas here, or whether you want to create parallel templates in a kinder, gentler form that co-exist with existing ones? There is precedent for the latter, if that's what you want. Consider templates {{uw-subtle1}} and {{uw-subtle2}} compared to {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-vandalism2}}. (Note: {{uw-subtle3}} and {{uw-subtle4}} exist, but are not all that different from uw-v3 and uw-v4.) So are we doing something like uw-coi-subtle and uw-paid-subtle alongside the existing ones, or replacing them? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot We had a previous conversation over at User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Biting where WhatamIdoing wrote: It would be better to try to replace the existing templates. Polygnotus (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Now that the goal is clear, it should be easier to get there. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me, WhatamIdoing. As I said, I intended to look at this long ago. The fact that I didn't is largely a result of attention deficit disorder, the biggest plague of my life.

I agree that the existing templates should be replaced. The trouble with leaving them in place and just creating alternative is that experience shows that scarcely anyone will actually use the new ones. Most people won't even realise they are there, and others will continue with the old ones because of a remarkably common impression that they are in some sense the "official" notifications, which "should" be used.

The suggested templates look pretty good to me. One change I would make, though, is to add explicit mention of the relevant guidelines etc; for example, User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI contains a link to the conflict of interest guideline, but it doesn't say that that's what it is. I would put in something like "a fuller explanation us in Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest", or "you may like to look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest for further information. I also see that that page says "As a reminder, the Wikimedia Terms of Use require disclosing any paid editing relationships..." but it isn't a reminder, because the fact hasn't been mentioned before on that page, and there's no reason to expect the editor to have previously been told about it. JBW (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2025

Change "to Wikipedia again" to "into Wikipedia again". Spam links are usually inserted into a website and not "to" a website. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-editsummary

Updated sentence two of {{uw-editsummary}} (diff). The wording was very wishy-washy, as if we were begging without justification, but in reality, edit summaries are required by policy (here) and we should not be shy about saying so. Still, as only a level-1, it is worded very gently, with no mention of blocks, but the policy link was not included before, and really needs to be. This rectifies that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-biog1, documentation

Documentation of templates Template:Uw-biog1, Template:Uw-biog2, Template:Uw-biog3 (those I checked) include showing Multi-level user warning or notice templates, with clickable show field, which clicked shows other related templates.

After reviewing what I wanted, I would like to hide that again (most of it was not related to task at hand), but couldn't find a clickable hide area (button?) to do it. I could get it hidden again only by reloading the page.

Could the template used to show those related templates be used in a way to show a hide clickable area (button?) (and for all templates where this is used? Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Marjan Tomki SI: The "[hide]" link is there, but it might be off the right-hand side of your screen. After clicking "[show]", you should find that at the bottom of your browser window there is a scrollbar. Slide that to the right, so that the window contents move left. This will reveal the "[hide]" link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 6 May 2025

Change the link in uw-create1 warning from Wikipedia:List of policies to Wikipedia:List of guidelines

Diff:

−

may not conform to some of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of policies|guidelines]] for new pages,

+

may not conform to some of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|guidelines]] for new pages,

37.25.85.161 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2025

Please change "vandalised" to "vandalized" to keep it in line with other templates, such as Template:Uw-vandalism4 RaschenTechner (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 29 April 2025

The uw-error4 has the phrase "you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information", whereas the uw-error4im has the phrase "if you continue to deliberately introduce factual errors into articles" instead of the one seen in uw-error4. Can somebody change this to the one seen in uw-error4 for consistency? Thanks.

Diff:

−

if you continue to deliberately introduce factual errors into articles

+

if you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introduce factual errors again

92.55.125.192 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: for a start, your suggested change is grammatically incorrect (by deliberately introduce). M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless you also change "introduce" to "introducing", then it's grammatically correct Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2025

Change wording from "the loss of editing privilages" to "being blocked from editing" Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger: Was this change discussed somewhere? I see you also edited Template:Uw-attempt1, but I cannot find any related discussion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 14 May 2025

Grammar fix in Uw-unsourced2:

Diff:

−

Please review the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] and to see how to add references to an article

+

Please review the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] to see how to add references to an article

-- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging JBW (talk · contribs) as the editor who changed the text and created this error. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. Oops! Thank you, Fyrael & Doniago. JBW (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

Add a sentence stating Wikipedia's policy for citing sources Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Template:Uw-unsourced1 has two links to guidelines about sources and a link to a how-to guide about sources. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Uw-toppost-section?

Is there a warning template for someone posting a new comment at the top of a discussion section? If not, could {{uw-toppost}} be modified to add a section switch?

I am referring to a situation such as this: [3] where a new different editor posts to the top of the section above the initiating comment.

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• {{Uw-gamingblock}} - gaming the system, goes with {{Uw-gaming}} templates
• {{Uw-colorblock}} - adding non-compliant colors, goes with {{Uw-color}} templates
• {{Uw-attemptblock}} - triggering the edit filter, goes with {{Uw-attempt}} templates

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

@Mario662629: You're not an administrator. Why would you need these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

• {{Uw-disruptblock}} goes with {{Uw-disruptive1}}, {{Uw-disruptive2}}, {{Uw-disruptive3}}, and {{Uw-generic4}}.
• I'm talking about the templates left on user talk pages, not the ones used in the block reasons.
• For the purpose of testing and organization, I have created this test page, which is being used for the purpose of organizing these templates.

Mario662629 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

Template:Uw-coi

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)

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)