Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed changes to uw-vaublock[edit]

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just made some changes to the template's sandbox because the text that we're seeing right now looked really vague and outdated compared to its sister uw-uhblock.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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
 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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2024[edit]

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)"[reply]

To which template(s)? DonIago (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I already answered your edit request. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that. Sorry, I was trying to clarify. Waylon (was) (here) 19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

{{Uw-copyright}} discussion over specific text wording[edit]


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.
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Warning template for breaking templates[edit]

Moved from WP:VPR
 – Sdkbtalk 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Sdkbtalk 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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
) 16:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300 I can see the logic in adding a "If you're not the copyright holder" sentence to the end. --Ahecht (TALK
) 02:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]