Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

Template-protected edit request on 22 October 2019Edit

Can you remove all of the unused empty spaces in Template:Uw-biog1 Template:Uw-biog2 Template:Uw-biog3 Template:Uw-biog4. Thanks. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And yes, I did actually look at the templates' code, and I didn't see any unused empty spaces. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95 see the diff [1]___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
What's the point of that? It's noincluded and has no effect on the template's appearance when used. It merely makes the single line of documentation sit better on the template's own page. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That space looks fine to me, but I have no problem with another template editor removing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95 and Cabayi, it just looks weird with space in reading mode. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  Not done per Cabayi above. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Create Template:uw-vandalism1/docEdit

(applying to {{uw-vandalism1}} Adding separate documentation would help improve documentation. Monniasza talk 20:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 04:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant warning missingEdit

Is it just me, or are we missing a rather important warning? Users who repeatedly delete sourced content because they claim it's incorrect. The delete-warnings do not cover it, as these users often add edit summaries (basically claiming they know better than sources). Similarly, even though it is POV-editing, POV does not really cover it either. Given that we have warnings both for adding unsourced material and for using bad sources, wouldn't it make sense to have warnings for deleting good sources based on WP:TRUTH. Jeppiz (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

refspamEdit

Would it be worth to make {{uw-refspam1}} through refspam4im for editors who are spamming references? The {{uw-spam1}} could be used, but instead of linking to WP:EL linking to WP:RS and talking about continued addition of dubious sources being regarded as a form of spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, there's already a {{uw-refspam}}, do you think that changing it to a multi-level template would be a better option? creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Creffett, I did not know that one .. but that does not really cover my case. There are more and more cases of editors placing (likely their) websites as references. Not necessarily 'a small group of researchers'. Some of these are plain 'spam' websites, not even research. So yes, maybe it is worth considering the multi-level set. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Change to Template:Uw-genre1Edit

I suggest changing Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies to Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies, since it isn't always them both. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (TalkContribs) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
BOLDly done. creffett (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of username block templatesEdit

Uw-coi: "which forms all or part of work"Edit

@JBW: Regarding Special:Diff/853854806, the previous wording can be found in the Terms of Use as well as WP:PAID. Where does the current wording come from, and should we really attempt to insert personal interpretation into text copied from a "policy with legal considerations"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the policy interpreted both ways ("paid only counts if you're being paid specifically to do editing" vs "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"). I suspect that there's need for a broader discussion about where to draw the line between COI and PAID. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is that a "personal interpretation"? The terms of use say "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." If I am doing work for which I am paid and which includes editing Wikipedia, then my edits to Wikipedia are being paid for. Is there some other way to interpret the quoted text from the terms of use? On the other hand I can't see how "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity" can be justified. Being paid by someone for work unrelated to Wikipedia, and also separately and privately editing Wikipedia about that person is not paid editing, though of course it is editing with a conflict of interest. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
JBW, what I'm thinking about in the latter case (and I might not have clearly articulated what I was thinking) was a COI case a few months back where the president of a for-profit university was editing the page about that school. I recall some disagreement about whether it counted as paid - on the one hand, his job description probably doesn't include editing Wikipedia, on the other, his job is to make the school look good. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. That is a sort of grey area where one could argue either way, and there could be a case for making the policy on paid editing more specific. However, my personal view is that the modern tendency to try to deal with issues that come up with by making polices ever more and more specific to block any loopholes is a mistake, and it is far better to try to follow the original spirit of Wikipedia, which is that we don't have firm rules. Why is there any need to "draw the line between COI and PAID"? I haven't seen the particular case you are referring to, so I can't specifically comment on it, but in general such a situation is clearly a case of conflict of interest, and can be dealt with accordingly, without wasting time on wikilawyering over whether it is or isn't technically paid editing. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is no other way to interpret the quoted text, there's no need for the additional clarification. If there is, it is a personal interpretation. The addition seems to needlessly complicate the already-complex sentence, and quoting the actual wording of the TOU/policy seems preferable to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Now you are turning my words round to mean something that they didn't say. There is no logical way of taking the terms of use as meaning anything else, but that doesn't prevent people from misunderstanding, and they often do. "Additional clarification" is therefore likely to be helpful. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Template messages/User talk namespace".