Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Templates warning against frivolous XfD/PROD nominations and comments?

What is a good way to warn a user who makes a clearly inappropriate or disruptive XfD/PROD nomination, such as one without a valid reason for deletion? What about users who make disruptive comments at XfD that have nothing to do with the deletion policy? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon, here's my recommendation: start by writing a manual message: explain why their edits are disruptive, ask them to stop. If it's a new editor, try to avoid jargon. If disruptive edits continue – revert. Then Template:Uw-disruptive1 becomes appropriate, since it presupposes that the edits were reverted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A manual message seems good. The issue I have with existing templates is that XfD nominations and comments shouldn't be reverted like other edits just for being unconstructive (like saying an article "fails GNG" when it obviously doesn't). XfD nominations can be closed as speedy keep if there's no deletion rationale or they're obviously disruptive, but that's not exactly reversion and doesn't apply to all frivolous nominations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Uw-softerblock

−

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects

+

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects.

Just a small copyedit for template editors to do. Template in question is lacking a period. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done SilverLocust 💬 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Uw-copyright-new

Does anyone else think that saying Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing in {{uw-copyright-new}} is a bit BITEy? This is supposed to be the "gentler" message for people who don't know they're doing anything wrong. There's always {{uw-copyright}} for people who should know better. We don't even allude to blocking in {{uw-v1}}, {{uw-blp2}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-npa2}}, etc. All of those are more often than not given to editors who likely do know they're up to no good. But the public's perception of copyright is something like "it's on the web so it's public domain". Education is critical, but do we have to jump to threats on the first offense? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions either way. I don't interpret that as a threat, but rather as a cautionary note that isn't emphasized in any way, and I think copyvios are serious enough (I'd say they're more serious than the other warnings cited) that maybe mentioning the potential for being blocked should be included in the first warning. That said, if other editors disagree, I won't make a fight over it. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a copyright violation is very serious for Wikipedia and needs a warning that conveys what will happen if one keeps introducing such material. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing for Template:Uw-spam1

Well, I just learned that I had used this template incorrectly because I was unaware that Template:Uw-elinbody existed. However, I was still wondering if something should be added to this template to inform users of WP:NOELBODY since editors who add inappropriate external links also frequently insert them into the body of an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing of Uw-ew

The template currently reads:

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This wording is too weak—we should change it too:

Do not edit war even if you are right.

This is what's right. Even if you are right in a content dispute and will be proven right in the end, you should not edit war. The usual exceptions apply, of course, like reverting vandalism and enforcing arbitration provisions. Air on White (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)