Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace ispermanentlyprotected from editing because it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported byconsensus, editors may use {{edit semi-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor, extended-confirmed editor or autoconfirmed editor to make the requested edit.

This page is part of theWikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of theuser warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free tojoin in.

To helpcentralize discussions and keep related topics together, alluw-* template talk pages andWikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.

 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 ourcontentious 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 aboutcorrect 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 aWhen to use section, or maybe better, aWhen 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)[reply]

Will take to Tfd.Mathglot (talk)09:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 14#Template:Uw-controversial.Mathglot (talk)09:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from Archive 2; Tfd still active.Mathglot (talk)18:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you would like to make test edits, please use thesandbox. Thank you.Faster than Thunder (talk |contributions)18:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI
• User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

theUsername Hard Blocked template has the phrase "Wikipedia's username policy", whereas theVandalism 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AtTemplate:Uw-tdel1 andTemplate: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 perWP:WNTRMT, but the uw templates give the opposite impression.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸23:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that either template (currently) mentions the Talk page?DonIago (talk)15:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thisedit request toTemplate:Uw-unsourced1 has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono 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)[reply]

 Question: Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the{{Edit template-protected}} template. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think you're misunderstandingme - 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 toExample article appears to have multiple issues:

• You added content that does not appear constructive and is suspected of beingvandalism.
• Youdeleted 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 alsodeleted content without adequately explaining why in your edit summary. Thank you.}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 avoidtemplating 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)[reply]

This is exactly what I do.DonIago (talk)02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request toTemplate:uw-ew has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

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

Diff:

Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk)18:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger Which warning?Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk ·📜My work)20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one:

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk)20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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:

• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref1
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref2
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref3
• User:Raph Williams65/uw-removalofref4

I can create the templates directly but i need further information from others. Thanks. –Raphael19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject User warnings