User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award

{{{2}}} THIS EDIT

History

This award was introduced in December 2006 by User:fabartus who always seems to find very stale, Merge pages, Move pages, Clean, Copy edit, and such other tagging without a good clear administrative record of when and by whom such have been added. So it is hoped this chiding will be taken to heart by those editing too fast and too superficially for the rest of us coming along later, especially much later.
     Since many if not most of these 'In your face' (Ugly!) tags overtly imply that the editor applying same should provide a rationale for doing so, this 'reminder', will hopefully improve much going forward, as those added arguments in such tags have not been effective for combating this time wasting problem by themselves. (In the case of some merges, moves, and cleans more than a year after and dozens or hundreds of edits to poke through and no talk rationale! Grrrrr!

Purpose and Usage

     This 'Award' is to be applied on a user talk page only and is part of a family of critique templates meant to gently chide an editor for not taking proper care for our collective time, to get with the program in clearly documenting their actions, and make the point that when they do not, they are costing other editors time. It is to be hoped that such a notice might result in overall better documentation trails for all of us to use.
     One of these might be used when an editor is unclear, incomplete, or cryptic instead of leaving a clear edit summary, especially when the action was to apply most any of the self-referential semi-controversial administrative (and self-debasing) 'In-your-face' banner-type Notice templates (Clean, copyedit, Mergeto, etc.) on articles which manifest all too boldly in the top of an article in ways useless to the lay customer-reader. It's use is especially encouraged with the failure to adequately annote when and why the template was applied with a signed rationale on the article talk page. Especially on those templates which clearly imply such a note is part of the process of applying such. (Example: {{Mergeto}}, {{Merge}}, etc.)
     In particular, this one might be awarded for not leaving a clear rationale, or notice on the talk page as a dated section title including the template name applied before a set of point organized rationale and reasons for the bold edit. In general use this version when the editor does not leave a quick easy means to track who place such templates on the article when, and what their reasons were for doing so.
     Some judicious use of this 'wet diaper' type of award by this society will hopefully improve overall edit summaries and documentation so as to maximize the time the rest of us can spend getting work done, rather than wasting time searching out who did what and why types of fact chasing. FrankB 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Caution

-- In the spirit of Don't bite the newcomers, if someone has accrued one or two of these 'Strong-In-Your-Face' notices about past actions on their talk page, cut them some slack and just leave the link without the template so they can police their responsibility and clear the template. Use of a question like: "Do you think the Merge tag you placed on URL can be cleared yet? The talk discussion is stale, and no consensus was reached." (In sum, courteous reminders will do after a few slaps to the face with the noodle save for real uncaring hardcases!)

Usage

{{Wet noodle award|Arg-1|URL}}, apply to user talk of editor failing to document actions clearly. The URL is a full URL, not a Wikilink, and a wikilink will not work (no pipe in the resultant command string construction.)

• Arg-1 -- Give the template name applied by the transgressor which needed to be tracked down.
• Arg-2 -- Full URL Link to Instance, such as a diff page in the history. (easy, presumes navigating from such a page when researching when, where, and why. Just cut the url into the edit buffer, and go the the user talk page.
• Note: The template will automatically assume no additional comments on your message and concludes you will complete the line with your signature. If you want to add comments to the boilerplate text, use {{Wet noodle award2}}, and include your thoughts as the third arguement.

Related

(Note, this could be implimented as two templates using parser functions, but I figure not using an If statement will minimize server loading some small amount since user talk pages may be viewed by many on many days to come. Hence flavors, vice elegant logic was chosen in the design.)

1. Template:Wet noodle award1(edit talk links history) -- Same appearance, but allows amplified comments above the salutaion and signature. See also difference with {{Wet noodle award3}}.
2. Template:Wet noodle award2(edit talk links history) -- Gives a condensed message for when edit summary was good, but the talk page was missing the reasoning and notification section.
3. Template:Wet noodle award3(edit talk links history) -- Appearance is same as '2', but '3', like '1' allows a third Argument for additional gripes or comments (perhaps a compliment as well as the mild slap to face?!!)

Example appearance

subst'd