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

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

This edit request to Template:Uw-spamublock has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-spam1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move up guidelines link.

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

— 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

This edit request to Template:Uw-vandalism2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:Uw3 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-npov1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-3rr has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

selected list of editors placing template uw-create1 Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorted list of editors who have placed {{uw-create1}}, culled from 500 such placements where the placing username was visible in the Cirrus search result page resulting from executing this search, and expanding it to the first 500 results, then sorting it (dupes not removed) and bulletizing:

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-generic4 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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:

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-unsourced1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:uw-ew has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Diff:

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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:

I can create the templates directly but i need further information from others. Thanks. – Raph ael 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.

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.
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.
User makes third revert - we serve a {{subst:uw-3rr}} directly to the user talk page
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:

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-spam4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Diff:

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-blank1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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:

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-disruptive2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Template:Uw-unsourced2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Grammar fix in Uw-unsourced2:

Diff:

-- 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

This edit request to Template:Uw-unsourced1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Template: Uw-blockindefnotalk

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you please do not italicize the word 'also' in the message to ensure the consistency? Thanks. 14.245.39.26 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done: The three italicised instances of the word "also" only occur when preceded by the word "See", which is also italicised. I don't see why one should be de-italicised and not the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Missing (?) level 4 warning template

I've noticed that there is no level 4 warning for introducing incorrect pronouns, Uw-pronouns. I've used level 4 vandalism to substitute. I wondered if there was a reason for only level 1,2 and 3? Knitsey (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-or" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Uw-or has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 29 § Template:Uw-or until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-npov1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm thinking we should add a parameter for edits that are obviously not neutral instead of edits that merely seem to not be neutral. Something that would change the wording slightly. E.g. "Your edit to X was not neutral in nature" vs. "your edit to X was reverted because it did not seem neutral". Thoughts? » Gommeh (he/him) 17:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. This is not an uncontroversial edit request. Level 1 notifications nearly always assume good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-chat

The wording on this is somewhat outdated with today's Internet ("chat rooms" and "forums" are very 1990s/2000s) and with the reasons people make junk edits to talk page.

Suggest adding verbiage that talk pages are not a search engine and not ChatGPT. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually if I'm removing comments for UW-chat reasons, and it's not blatant nonsense, it's not because people are using them as a search engine or ChatGPT, it's because people are making comments unrelated to improving the article. "Man, I love Star Wars! But what happened to Luke's lightsaber after Cloud City?" or such. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 20 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just saw that User:CyberTheTiger had accidentaly removed the uw-blank warning templates after they added the deleted multi-level edit warring templates, summary saying that it accidentally pasted it. Can someone bring back the uw-blank warnings to the Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates page for consistency? Thanks.

Sorry, i cannot post the differences due to some problems in text rendering. 92.53.21.142 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

uw-disruptive4im

Hello. I wanted to tell you guys that uw-disruptive4im should be created. The reason was to notify the users the only warning if they disrupt Wikipedia again. For an example, {{subst:uw-disruptive4im}} would produce:

This is your only warning; if you disrupt Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This template will be useful to warn these users continuously with disruptive editing, and it will be the only warning before the user gets blocked, similar to other 4im templates. 92.53.21.142 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the need. Template:uw-disruptive4 is already a redirect to Template:uw-generic4 which basically says the same thing you've proposed here. Put another way, if we were going to create such a template, I think a redirect would suffice anyway. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: Template:Uw4im

This edit request to Template:Uw4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Switch to semantic markup: <b> → <strong>

Cf. MOS:NOBOLD

The text appears the same (in bold), but this carries additional semantic meaning, e.g. a screen reader may use a different voice for 'strong' text.

— W.andrea (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC) edited 20:09

Done Izno (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: Template:Uw-delete4im

This edit request to Template:Uw-delete4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add context:

I'm suggesting this because I had an unfortunate situation earlier where I used this template and the user thought I was forbidding them from editing the page (Why I can't edit those pages?). In retrospect, I should have used {{Uw-delete4}} instead, which already includes this verbiage.

— W.andrea (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: uw-delete series

This edit request to Template:Uw-delete4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add link to WP:Content removal on {{Uw-delete4im}}:

Same for all the other uw-delete templates:

{{uw-delete1}} already has this link.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this would be totally uncontroversial since it's just adding a link and {{uw-delete1}} already includes it. No? — W.andrea (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there may be an argument that editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature. It's arguably linking an easily understandable phrase. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

linking an easily understandable phrase

My rationale for linking it isn't "this could be misunderstood", it's "we have a page that provides more details about this". — W.andrea (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature.

Note that {{Uw-delete4im}} is an "only warning" so editors wouldn't have received a level 1 warning. — W.andrea (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would be delivering an "only warning" if an editor hadn't been warned about the same behavior in the past. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

An "only warning" means they only get one warning. Are you thinking of a final warning?

If it helps, I issued an only warning on the 18th because a user out of the blue removed a large chunk of the article Tuvan throat singing, marked it as "minor", didn't write adequate edit summaries, and seemed to be specifically erasing the contributions of Mongolians.

— W.andrea (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I don't think editors typically issue only warnings to editors who have never received warnings previously, unless whatever they did to merit the warning is so incredibly blatant and unambiguous that it's simply impossible to believe the editor didn't know it would be considered problematic.

In the case you described, if they had no prior warnings on their Talk page, I'd probably still give them a level 3 or 4 for a first-time offense. Either one is significant enough to result in a block if they continue their behavior. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see. — W.andrea (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Done Consensus to me is not obvious here, but I'm honestly not really convinced about not adding this link based on it possibly being the case a user has gotten the 1st version. I regularly issue first-time warnings between 1 and 4 and I think it's fair to provide editors (GF or BF) the opportunity to understand what they're doing in our context. Boldly added. Izno (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting for Template:Mehasana

ASKED ELSEWHERE

Already asked and answered on other noticeboards qcne (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Sir,

I am requesting you to create the Template for Mahesana district. I already created, but need your help to make it meaningful.

Thank you,

~ Rahulkrsah (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uw-error templates

I feel that these templates should be moved to Uw-incorrect because it makes more sense. Uw-error is ambiguous and people could think it refers to other templates (eg. the vandalism Template). Uw-incorrect currently redirects there Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Uw-citevar

Announcing single-level notice {{uw-citevar}}, to advise a user about WP:CITEVAR issues. I will notify RedWarn and Twinkle. Please make any needed improvements. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-subtle1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "[[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]" to "[[Help:Introduction|welcome page]]" Jako96 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed per WP:NOTBROKEN – redirect from a page move. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead wranglers

I not infrequently run across editors who fall into an editing style that I am gong to call, "lead wranglers". By this I mean, those editors, usually fairly new, whose edits are made mostly to the lead of various articles, with no clear benefit, but hard to attack as clearly violating some guideline. (Probably WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY comes closest.) These editors may be of good faith and they may be seriously trying to improve wording, grammar, or style, although rarely citations or content; their edits are pretty much always low-effort edits of uncertain value. Maybe they are improvements, maybe not, but they generally don't involve, say, significant effort to chase down a reliable source and generate a needed citation; rather, they are the low-hanging fruit of non-objectionable word diddling or just questionable changes in wording or style. At some level, maybe we have all been guilty of this on some occasion, but if I am not mistaken, there is a cohort of editors who do this to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. They just diddle the lead, leaving it no worse, maybe, but whether it is better, is doubtful, and anyone's guess.

One, or two, or a handful of such edits would probably fly under the radar and not matter, especially as there may not be a particular policy or guideline violation to point to (and template their talk page with). But at some point, one has to question whether they are really here to improve the encyclopedia, or just getting off on messing with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with the least effort they can get away with, by continually messing with the top of the page. I view such edits as unhelpful, and potentially disruptive.

First of all, I am interested in your feedback: whether you have noticed anything like what I am describing, and how you have dealt with it. Secondly, I am considering creating a new advice template for this situation, to be called {{uw-lead wrangler}}, at least until someone comes up with a better name. The point of having a template is to record the event on the user talk page when warranted. Ideally, by making the editor aware, they would change their ways and improve as an editor, and that would be the best outcome. But in the worst case, it would provide a record that might be of value later to an admin looking at the user's history. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-test3 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] icon to [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] to match with the other uw-3 templates. Yerlo (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. I checked four or five level 3 templates, and they all use the Nuvola image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 August 2025

This edit request to Tm:uw-biog3 and Tm:uw-npa3 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

These templates should also have their icons changed from File:Ambox warning pn.svg to File:Nuvola apps important.svg to match the base template ({{uw3}}) and the other uw-3 templates. Yerlo (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching these. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What have I been doing lately?

I'm currently adding the {{Find substed templates notice}} template to the template documentations of various user warning and block templates, especially the block templates. This is specifically to make it easier to find users who have been blocked in the past for specific reasons.

In addition, some partial block template documentations, like Uw-pblock/doc, they literally almost copy Block notice/inner's substituted code, and then have a few small changes (e.g. the addition of the "Parameters" section). This should be compacted to use the same base wrapper template for all of the block templates' documentations, so that updates to the style of Block notice/inner can be consistent. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@RaptorsFan2019: You've been editing Wikipedia for less than a week, so why the interest in altering block templates? Blocks may only be imposed by administrators, who are de facto the only people who should be servicng block notices. So really, it's outside your area of requirement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Uw-rfcbefore

Announcing single-level notice {{uw-rfcbefore}}, to advise a user about Rfc before issues. Please make any needed improvements.

Pinging @Mz7, SPECIFICO, Closetside, WeatherWriter, ScottishFinnishRadish, Redrose64, Mandruss, Nemov, and Isaidnoway: because you have also advised users in discussions or at their Talk page about WP:RFCBEFORE issues; apologies in advance if the ping was unwelcome. Please leave feedback below, or just boldly edit the template as you see fit. I will notify Twinkle. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. "Unwelcome" pings don't exist in my world, provided they are in good faith. I am perfectly capable of ignoring pings where I have nothing to say; costs me less than a minute in most cases. Life is short but not that short. lol.

My first thought: Why couldn't all that just be added to WP:RFCBEFORE? Instead of templating the guy (or girl), we could just link to RFCBEFORE, which we already do many times. It goes without saying that RFCBEFORE, like all guideline-type information, should be well written and accessible to the average editor. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There needs to be a way of 'appealing'

It is wrong that this template does not seem to allow for the possibility that the edit might not be vandalism and that the revert might be unjustified. It should include a way of 'appealing' - something to the effect of 'if you believe that this is a mistake and your edit was not unconstructive, you can ask for further input on the issue at (link)'. In general, there should be some kind of standard dispute resolution procedure for such cases. For instance, I just got this in connection with this, and I realise that there is no standard procedure for me to follow in order to have my contribution restored, given that just reverting back would presumably count as an edit war. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, I note that in 2015, the Level 1 template included a note such as 'If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page'. Now it's gone. I even remember a discussion about the removal of this part - it was a bad decision with bad arguments, placing the comfort of vandal patrollers, who want to revert without being bothered on their talk pages, above giving the users whose edits are reverted any opportunity to object. It was the classic authoritarian fallacy that ;criminals don't deserve any rights - including the right to a fair procedure to establish whether they are, in fact, criminals'. --62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. If you disagree with the notice, you can message the other editor first. People make mistakes; not every mistake has to be escalated to a formal appeal process. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you may be putting too much weight on a level 1 warning. If you disagree with the warning itself, you can always delete it and move on. If you disagree with the revert of your edit, you can always ask the question at the article's Talk page, or reach out to the editor who warned you. There's also other options. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2025: Use semantic markup

This edit request to Template:Uw-ew has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change bold to {{strong}}:

<strong> renders as bold, but carries additional semantic meaning which is good for accessibility, e.g. a screen reader can use a different voice.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

W.andrea -

Done (see diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS compliance

In the indef version of the uw-block template, one part of the message goes "You have been [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]". Per WP:MOS/Linking, double links like that are generally confusing and not used when possible. Would it be possible to replace this double link with "You have been [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|blocked indefinitely]]"? After all, both links lead to different sections of the same page, so it doesn't seem like too much information would be lost by changing the template. Somepinkdude (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me on the face of it, but if anyone responsible for the original decision is around, I'd be curious to hear what the rationale is/was. DonIago (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely a good idea. We already shove enough walls of blue text at people, and it's fully redundant with the first link anyway. Perryprog (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-orphantalk created

I've gone ahead and moved a user warning I was using in userspace for a few days to be a full grown-up warning and added it to I think all the lists, barring getting it added by default to Twinkle (which I'll also do provided no one has any issue with my doing so). It's specifically meant to be a quick polite message in response to talk page creations that have no existing articles, and are page creations that don't have enough content to warrant keeping. (For those, I just treat it like a normal draftify and use {{Uw-movedtodraft}} or similar.) This has seemingly become a common pattern, and I'm using it enough that it seems it'd be helpful for others. (Also it needs semi-page protection still so if any admin wants to drive-by add that, it'd be appreciated!) Perryprog (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Uw-ai

I want to update this to use {{Str startswith}} to automatically show a WP:HATGPT variant when the article link is set to a talk page, but ai1 is riddled with empty or oddly-placed noincludes and I'm worried I might accidentally break it if I touch anything. Dandykong1 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Link: Template:Uw-ai1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dandykong1: The empty <noinclude></noinclude> are there to prevent the various safesubst: from being triggered until the template is WP:SUBSTed for real. You can make your experimental changes in Template:Uw-ai1/sandbox where they won't affect the real world. See WP:TESTCASES --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to implement this and the switch (to allow for future adaptation to other namespaces) doesn't work in substitutions no matter what I do, and once I thought it worked I published the changes only to discover that I accidentally transcluded it in testing. Dandykong1 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I decided to just make new templates for this. Dandykong1 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-archive

Please update this template. It is incorrect in two regards.

One: It appears targeted at user talk pages, not talk pages in general. Yet it links to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Archiving and not to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User talk pages. Basically it should use WP:OWNTALK (and not, effectively, WP:TALKCOND or WP:TALKSIZE).

Two: It claims that the guideline say As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. but a specific number (such as 75 KB) has not been mentioned since March 2025 (discussion: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 17#Limit). Not to mention this number didn't apply to user talk pages even when it was there...

Also, the template's documentation should probably be more specific about when to use and - crucially - not to use this template.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

After thinking more about it, I have nominated the template for deletion. I believe further discussion is best held here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 6#Template:Uw-archive. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

...less than a day after raising the issue here? What's the rush? Why not give this opening of a discussion an opportunity to resolve the issue before jumping to a deletion nom? - \\'cԼF 10:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Because after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, what specific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !vote keep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-tdel4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

link to specific help page:

I just made this change myself at levels 2, 3, and 4.

— W.andrea (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

W.andrea - Okay; seems harmless and fine to me -

Done. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-ew

This template had used File:Ambox warning pn.svg as it's icon ever since this edit in 2011, but in this edit, the icon was changed to File:Stop hand nuvola.svg. I don't see any consensus for such a change, especially since Template:Uw-3rr has already used File:Stop hand nuvola.svg as it's icon since 2011. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If a change has been left in place with no discussion for 14 years, we can safely assume the change has acquired consensus. That doesn't mean you can't boldly go ahead and change it back... CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The icon the IP is asking to change to is the one that was here for 14 years, not the one that's been here half a month. They can't change it back because the template's template-protected. (I've got no opinion either way myself.) —Cryptic 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the specific edit that the IP is contesting: Revision as of 10:57, 15 September 2025. Pinging @Oshwah, the editor performing that edit: could you please explain your rationale for changing the icon? Your edit summary only says Updating with clearer wording and better sentence structure, formatting. which doesn't even mention that you changed the icon? Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp - My rationale for doing so was for a few reasons. There are three warning templates that involve edit warring: {{uw-ewsoft}} (softer wording for new users, assumes good faith), {{uw-3rr}} (warning with explanation; assumes neutral faith), and this template - {{uw-ew}} (warning without in-depth explanation; assumes that the user is not new). My thought was that the image used on the "neutral warning with explanation" (File:Stop hand nuvola.svg), when comparing the visual and symbols used to the one used on this template (File:Ambox warning pn.svg), it is much more direct and... "tougher"? Just like how we use File:Ambox warning pn.svg on level 3 vandalism warnings and use File:Stop hand nuvola.svg on level 4 and level 4im warnings. I thought that since this warning is a bit "tougher", it should have at least the same one as the "neutral" one. The reason that I didn't mention it in the summary was because... I didn't think about it when I was entering it. Sorry about that; I'll keep that in mind for next time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Like Cryptic, I have no direct stake in this discussion. I do feel slightly confused your three templates doesn't even attempt to follow the standard naming practice... (I mean, why are these three given so completely different names? Why not uw-ew-im, uw-ew-soft and uw-ew-3rr?) However, that's off topic here. Let us see if this concludes this discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp - I'm astonished; you give me much more credit than I deserve! I wasn't the creator of any of these templates nor was I responsible for why they were given the names they have. Fortunately for us, the owner of these templates... wait... *looks again at his paperwork*... Oh, that's odd... *shuffles paperwork*..... no owner was written down according to my paperwork here! ;-) I guess that means... that means... MINE! IT'S MINE! I SAW IT FIRST! IT'S MINE!!! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're jesting, and that you did realize I didn't think you necessarily had anything to do with the naming of these, and only made my observation now that you brought them up as a grouped trio. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp - Correct; I was just being silly... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-legal has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please add "If your copyrighted content is being used improperly, you can submit a DMCA request." to this template. The Pizza Hackers 🍕 16:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Creating a template is not a simple semi-edit request. Can be discussed here though, but closing this. Nubzor [T][C] 17:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nubzor: The Pizza Hackers isn't asking for a template to be created, but an amendment to Template:Uw-legal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Done By SnowyRiver28. x2step (lets talk 💌) 05:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @X2step, my edit request script kept timing out for some reason! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

can you replace "[https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Wiki media_Foundation_Digital_Millennium_Copyright_ Act_(%22DMCA%22)_Policy DMCA request]" with "[[foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Policy|DMCA request]]"? The Pizza Hackers 🍕 14:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Done by User:Oshwah SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah i said replace the url with [[foundation:<insert text here>]], not add span plain links The Pizza Hackers 🍕 06:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They link to the same page, no? The link you provided is missing quotation marks and broken anyway. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

that's an example, i used <nowiki> so it doesnt appear as an actual link The Pizza Hackers 🍕 12:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Please make sure any example HTML tags you post in a comment are inside nowiki or code tags, you almost broke the page. Dandykong1 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Better still, use {{tag}} which is specifically designed and extensively tested to be safe from acciental interpretation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Pizza Hackers - I actually performed that edit on my own; I wasn't aware that you had this edit request open and that it involved the exact item that I saw and happened to improve. If you believe that the template needs further revision, you're of course 100% welcome to create a new edit request with the changes you suggest and your rationale for why it is necessary. If you'd like, I'll be happy to review it myself and discuss it with you. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The Pizza Hackers - I'm just following up with you here to let you know that I've made the edit to the template that you suggested in your request, so you're all set! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-notenglishtalk

I've often noticed some editors using other languages in their edit summaries (even if they use English in the actual edit). Could we make a slight tweak to the wording in the {{uw-notenglishtalk}} template to cover these instances?

It's common, but probably not quite common enough to create its own template, especially when essentially the reason behind it is the exact same as this one. Nil🥝 03:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Nil NZ - I agree that "communicated with" is a better word choice than "posted comments".

Done, with one exception: I added the word "other" to your suggestion so that it says, "communicated with other editors". ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 11 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Single notice links has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Please add the new Template:Uw-prod

Diff:

ÚíqíípédêÂ (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

ÚíqíípédêÂ - Sure. Where to exactly? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I provided a helpful diff… ÚíqíípédêÂ (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

So right after * [[Template:Gs/alert|probation]] ÚíqíípédêÂ (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

ÚíqíípédêÂ - Oh sorry, I meant what page am I making this change to? Your request gives me where in the page, but not the page itself. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

To Template:Single notice links. I didn’t notice the talk redirect ÚíqíípédêÂ (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

ÚíqíípédêÂ -

Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 15 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-unreliable has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:Uw-unreliable parameter description:

I'm not sure this particular template qualifies as "semi-protected" or not, but I don't want to change it myself for fear of breaking something. What I'm seeing is that the "Usage" section of Template:Uw-unreliable says "{{subst:Uw-unreliable|User name}} references a specific user name". I believe that should be talking about an "article name" instead. What I think (but am unsure) might fix it is in the diff below.

Diff:

Orxenhorf (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know either. Have you tried your requested edit on the sandbox per Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases? I am not sure why this is an edit request, but I will leave it for now anyways. Slomo666 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking again, I'm confused why you put this request on the template index talk page rather than the template talk page itself.Slomo666 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The template talk page link brings one here. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That said, it does indeed look to me as though param1 is supposed to be used for the name of an article, not the name of a user. I tried it out on my sandbox. I imagine the documentation for the template would need to be updated in addition to the template itself. I can attempt to make the fix if another editor concurs with my assessment, or if another editor wants to make the changes, they have my blessing. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Slomo666: As DonIago mentions, the "Talk" link on the template leads to here. I didn't even know that Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases existed. I'll look through it, but do still feel it would be better if someone with more than my few minutes of looking at template source code had the final say, particularly on a template in use across the entire site. Orxenhorf (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding to other responses – see at the top of this talk page a banner that says 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. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Done in Special:Diff/1317005308. I used param1=page name, because the template can be used for articles, category pages, template pages, etc.

This change is in the documentation of the template inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. The template itself isn't affected. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

For documentation of the parameter |param1= of template {{Single notice}}, see Template:Single notice#Parameters. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-subtle1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please changed the text "...may have been in good faith..." to "...may have been in good faith". The wikitext for the link is [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. As of Special:Permalink/1306120214, the template has four wikilinks already. The words "good faith" don't need additional explanation. Plain English interpretation without enwiki context is fine. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There are some newcomers out there that made an honest to-god mistake, and those same people may have a difficult time understanding the words "good faith". Honestly it's a confusing phrase that may require some further explanation for newcomers. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the term "good faith" is especially confusing. Do you have evidence supporting this? At least two dictionaries have listings for it, so it's not as though it's hard to find out what it means if one is confused. I also don't see that the meaning of the phrase is hard to infer from the context in which it's used here: "At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism." DonIago (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to leap in to support @Seanwk but fortunately I took a moment to check WP:AGF. It is an advice to experienced editors about their own response to another's edit. So it really would not be an appropriate link for that message. I guess there is a possible concern that the term may not be familiar in all dialects of English? So a wiktionary link, maybe? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I see your point here, but I think JMF's statement is also reasonable given that newcomers might not completely understand wiki terms. I thought that this edit would help newer editors understand their mistakes better and avoid them in the future, but now that I think about it, maybe we could be better off linking to a specific part in WP:AGF. Perhaps the section "About good faith"? Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'd just say that in this context I don't see how "good faith" is being used in a Wiki-specific manner. DonIago (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If we think there is a need to define an English idiom, use Wiktionary. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. Maybe we could add something like "Editors are encoraged to read Wikipedia's [[WP:LGL|Guidelines]]" as WP:LGL includes assuming good faith? Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The template already encourages whoever's receiving the warning to look at the welcome page. I feel as though this template is intended to be fairly gentle, and that adding this additional text would move it away from that intention. DonIago (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-hoax has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add {{subst:Tfd}} 🐟 Harringstars 🐟 19:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done: The template you listed should not be used in the user talk namespace. DonIago (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

i tagged it for Templates for discussion. so please add <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude> 🐟 Harringstars 🐟 19:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My apologies; I misunderstood what you were requesting. Let me take a closer look at this. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Done DonIago (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 October 2025

This edit request to Template:Uw-ublock-urmom has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "yo momma" to "yo mama" as it is more commonly used Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Done in Special:Diff/1319273962. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

"There's no obvious way to track the number of people who e.g. get a uw-FOO template"

Courtesy link: User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 128 § "You can't educate people with templates"

In this 2022 discussion about templating regulars, Iridescent said,

"there's no obvious way to track the number of people who e.g. get a {{uw-medrs}} template..."

That used to be the case, but there is a solution now. I was always frustrated by this as well, and decided to look into it some time back to see what could be done about this problem. It turns out, there was always a way, but it was indeed very non-obvious. I set out to work around this by hiding the obscurity in this template, and then transcluding a wrapper in the potted documentation used in all of the user warning templates. As a result, you will now find a line like this in the Usage section of the {{uw-medrs}} doc:

• Find count and examples of this template substed on User talk pages using this advanced search link.^{[2025; 2024; 2023]} (Patience; this may take a while.)

Clicking that link gives the number and list of users who have received the {{uw-medrs}} template, and from that, further analysis about usage, trends, or effectiveness of the template could be performed. This is now part of the documentation for all user warning templates, thus solving the original problem raised by Iridescent. Now, if we could only get people to read the doc, but that is a problem of a different order... Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping other discussants @Martinevans123, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Tryptofish:. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Usernames that represent... persons?

A discussion you might be interested in: Template_talk:Uw-coi-username#Usernames_that_represent..._persons? CapnZapp (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Uw-aitalk Discussion notice

Template talk:Uw-aitalk3#What is the actual offense here? CapnZapp (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

changed wording

Now that the community has rejected the deletion of this template ({{uw-archive}}) we must deal with it. First off, the wording has been changed to no longer claim the false assertion that 75 kB is a specified limit. I've updated the quoted bits of the linked guideline to reflect this, and I have essentially reworded this to much more gently ask the talk owner to voluntarily consider archiving.

Note that a friendly courtesy "ask to archive" template already exists: {{Please archive}} CapnZapp (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wording updates following TA changeover

It's occurred to me that some templates in the series may need IP to be replaced with TA in the near future. And {{uw-multipleIPs}} will probably need to be moved to {{uw-multipleTAs}} or similar. {{Shared IP advice}} can probably just be deprecated, unless someone thinks it needs to be sent to TFD instead. Anyway, may be worth prepping some maintanence. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)