Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

{{Edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace|answered=yes}}

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:

{{TextDiff|1=if you continue to deliberately introduce factual errors into articles|2=if you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introduce factual errors again}} 92.55.125.192 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: for a start, your suggested change is grammatically incorrect ({{tq|by deliberately introduce|q=yes}}). 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)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-blank1|answered=y}}

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)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-disruptive2|answered=y}}

Change wording from "the loss of editing privilages" to "being blocked from editing" Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|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)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Template:Uw-unsourced2|answered=yes}}

Grammar fix in Uw-unsourced2:

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article|2=Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article}} -- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging {{user|JBW}} as the editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-unsourced2&diff=prev&oldid=1281779225 changed the text] and created this error. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Done}}. Oops! Thank you, {{u|Fyrael}} & {{u|Doniago}}. JBW (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-unsourced1|answered=yes}}

Add a sentence stating Wikipedia's policy for citing sources Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|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)

Is there a warning template for someone posting a new comment at the top of a discussion section? If not, could {{tl|uw-toppost}} be modified to add a section switch?

I am referring to a situation such as this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuauht%C3%A9moc_Brooklyn_Bridge_collision&diff=prev&oldid=1290961769] 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)

I am creating new user block templates for certain actions that there are multi-level warnings for. Examples include:

• {{Tl2|Uw-gamingblock}} - gaming the system, goes with {{Tl2|Uw-gaming}} templates
• {{Tl2|Uw-colorblock}} - adding non-compliant colors, goes with {{Tl2|Uw-color}} templates
• {{Tl2|Uw-attemptblock}} - triggering the edit filter, goes with {{Tl2|Uw-attempt}} templates

Mario662629 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|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)

:::{{replyto|Mario662629}} When an administrator blocks a user, they select an option from the following list: Vandalism

Vandalism-only account

Copyright infringement

Creating attack pages

Violations of the biographies of living persons policy

Persistent addition of unsourced content

Creating patent nonsense or other inappropriate pages

Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes

Promotion / advertising-only account

Edit warring

Violation of the three-revert rule

Disruptive editing

Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy

Making legal threats

Arbitration enforcement

Contentious topic restriction

Block evasion

Abusing multiple accounts

Repeatedly triggering the edit filter

Sockpuppetry

Long-term abuse

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked

{{anonblock}}

{{anonblock}}

{{school block}}

{{rangeblock}}

{{blocked proxy}}

{{uw-upeblock}}

{{uw-ublock}}

{{uw-uhblock}}

{{uw-causeblock}}

{{uw-ublock-wellknown}}

{{uw-ublock-double}}

{{uw-uhblock-double}}

{{uw-softerblock}}

{{uw-spamublock}}

{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}}

{{uw-vaublock}}

{{CheckUser block}}

{{checkuserblock-wide}}

{{checkuserblock-account}}

{{Tor}}

{{webhostblock}}

{{colocationwebhost}}

{{OversightBlock}} Your first two are not among these, and your third is covered by {{tlxs|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)

::::* {{Tl2|Uw-disruptblock}} goes with {{Tl2|Uw-disruptive1}}, {{Tl2|Uw-disruptive2}}, {{Tl2|Uw-disruptive3}}, and {{Tl2|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 {{tlxs|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)

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)

{{edit request|ans=y}}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)

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)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-or&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=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)