Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:07, 23 January 2025

This page is part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.

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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages:Template index/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates

Right now, it indicates that the warning template should be {{subst:uw-generic4<nowiki>}} 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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)

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 . 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 • _Engage! • 15:12, 23 January 2025 (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)

• WikiProject User warnings