Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing note in warnings

There is only one level for this, which might be a bit strong for new editors Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Can we get a lighter level, similar to how there are multiple levels for vandalism? Bogazicili (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

uw-legal doesn't actually inform users that they will be blocked

The current wording of {{uw-legal}} states that Users who make such threats may be blocked. (emphasis added) It is my understanding that a user must be blocked until the legal threat is withdrawn. Is that not the case? And if it is, shouldn't the template be worded to note that outcome? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in practice we usually give a single, brief chance to withdrawl the threat. Hence why we have a warning. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the template doesn't mention that. It makes no mention of the fact that the way to avoid being blocked is to withdraw the threat. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

Change {{Block notice|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}}} to {{Block notice|temp or indef=yes|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}}} since this template can be used for temporary blocks. This only affects the documentation of the template. 137a (talk • edits) 00:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 01:24, 3 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)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

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)

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)