| Revision as of 05:16, 28 October 2013 editQuiddity (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,758 edits →uw-redlink: reply to EncMstr← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:16, 4 November 2013 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,975 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| Maybe ] needs a active voice makeover. ] </font>]] 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | Maybe ] needs a active voice makeover. ] </font>]] 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Uw-agf templates == | |||
| I've just discovered that we have the warning templates {{tl|uw-agf1}}, {{tl|uw-agf2}}, and {{tl|uw-agf3}}. Is it just me, or are these templates counterproductive? To me, it seems to be a failure of AGF to put one of these templates on another editor's talk page. If we were really assuming good faith, wouldn't we just leave the editor a message asking them what was wrong? I worry that the only real effect of these templates will be to make the templated editor angry or annoyed, rather than helping to guide them toward following our behavioural guidelines. With behavioural issues like this I'm a big fan of the theory that we should be leading by example, and I think these templates might set a bad precedent here. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, these templates seem kind of ironic, but so does the {{tl|uw-tempabuse}} series. How does my proposed {{tl|uw-agf4im}} template sound: | |||
| :{{stop}} This is your '''only warning'''. If you don't start assuming good faith '''right now, you may be ] without further notice.''' ] (]) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Meh, How about this: ] This is your '''only warning'''. The next time you assume bad faith on other users '''right now, it could result in a ].''' ] </font>]] 00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reply to|Mr. Stradivarius}} I think it might be worth taking them to ], especially since they don't really provide any information about exactly what the person needs to do differently. Ginsuloft & DDreth I really can't think of a time when it would be appropriate and necessary to give someone a warning about not AGF which doesn't assume good faith. Any and everytime there is an AGF issue it should be explained and discussed since ] depends a lot on personal interpretation of comment. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd just like to clarify that I agree with Mr. Stradivarius. I'm sorry if my comment came off as a bit immature. ] (]) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|Uw-ublock}} == | == {{tl|Uw-ublock}} == | ||
Revision as of 17:16, 4 November 2013
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing Template index/User talk namespace and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | 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 centralize discussion, all uw-* template talk pages and UW project talk pages, redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the UW-* templates, please be sure to identify which one. If you have a query, refer to the WikiProject user warnings main page for more information. |
Template:Archive box collapsible
uw-vandalism1 warning
Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Template:uw-vandalism1 - new wording, I think Template:uw-vandalism1 should stick to the "I reverted" language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree we should stick to the "I undid" language. James asked what harm there was in using the "was reverted" kind of language, and the answer is that we know it makes the warning less effective. This was very heavily discussed before implementing, at this 30 day RFC. Prior to the RFC, we ran randomized, controlled tests of versions that used active voice and where the user introduced themselves, against versions that used passive voice. We ended up proposing the current "I reverted" language because it was more effective at driving away vandals and introducing the rules. Considering that, using TW and Huggle, it is far more common to revert and warn simultaneously, the gains we got in making the warnings more effective are worth the comparatively small annoyance of needing to use a separate template like {{uw-vandalism0}} in an edge case. Plus, and this part is just my personal opinion as a writer, using passive voice is bad grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- When passive voice is needed, I personally prefer to use {{uw-test2}} instead of {{uw-vandalism0}} as it still assumes good faith but puts the warning at level 2 in case it really is a bad faith vandal we are dealing with. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe template:uw-disruptive1 needs a active voice makeover. Dreth Phantomhive 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Uw-ublock}}
Sending completely new users to Special:ListUsers comes across as slightly intimidating, in my opinion. How about the template proposing them to check availability of another username at the SUL Info? — Yerpo 13:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea, especially since every account is global now so even if there is only a local account you still can't create the global account. However I think a wikilink is probably better than an external link (tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ooh, I didn't know that it's possible to link to the toolserver like that, thanks. — Yerpo 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
uw-block discussion
on AN NE Ent 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Uw-unsourced templates are counterproductive to the encyclopedia
The uw-unsourced templates seem pretty WP:BITEish. Aside from their language, which misinterprets WP:V as "every piece of information must have a citation" and not "please cite reliable sources when a statement if a statement is likely to be challenge", it's hard for me to see them as more than impersonal responses to the contributions of newbies. If an experienced editor added a piece of information another editor interpreted as controversial, the editors would likely discuss the issue with specific language on the talk page. Slapping a uw-unsourced template on a newbie's talk page seems like an impersonal way to shut what could have been a productive conversation down. Is there any reason to keep these templates around? It seems far too easy for a protective editor to use them to push newcomers away from their article. (I've noticed this issue has been raised a couple of months ago couple of months ago, which primarily focused on the misinterpretation of WP:V and not the inappropriateness of having an "unsourced information" template at all.) --Lunar Jesters (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the idea of it is to be used when the information they added did need a citation. If editors use it when they shouldn't, that should be addressed with that editor. If the wording implies every piece of information needs a citation, it should just be updated to fix that rather than removing the templates altogether. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just can't think of any situation where a template would be more appropriate than addressing the specific piece of information. As a hypothetical example, "Thanks for contributing to the coffee article. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that suggests coffee can cause pancreatic cancer. I've tried to verify the fact you added, but I couldn't find anything on Google or Google Books. Could you point me in the direction of where you learned that coffee causes pancreatic cancer?" This sort of personalized response seems much more likely to lead editors to learn about Misplaced Pages policies and continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. An impersonal template is more likely to put editors on the defensive and make them leave Misplaced Pages in frustration. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:uw-inline-el
Hi,
I've come across {{uw-inline-el}}, which I think is suitable for adding to this project (at least after the bit of tidying myself and Scott Martin have done. Are there any hoops I should jump through before I add {{single notice}} to the template and add it to the list at {{single notice links}}?
While we're on the subject, would it make more sense for this to be moved to {{uw-inline-el1}}, possibly with higher levels of its own or possibly with higher levels redirecting to the uw-spam series?
—me_and 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- No hoops, add freely.
- I'd avoid making it into a series, unless strongly needed, as the proliferation of templates is an ongoing problem. Simplify, when possible! –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
uw-redlink
There used to be a useful warning template for ignorant removals of redlinks, but I see it was changed years ago and later deleted (years ago). I find myself composing a redlink removal warning frequently, so I would personally like to have it in Twinkle's choice of single issue notices. I have composed (recomposed?) such a template {{uw-redlink}}, but I am not sure of the process to incorporate it into TW. I would appreciate comments on the validity of such a user warning template as well as making it available in Twinkle. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'm not sure how/where templates get added to Twinkle, but asking at WT:TW is the best bet - I see a few similar requests in the archives there. –Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)