Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is permanently protected 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 by consensus, 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 the Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user 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 to join in.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.
Is there a warning template for someone posting a new comment at the top of a discussion section? If not, could {{uw-toppost}} be modified to add a section switch?
I am referring to a situation such as this: [1] where a new different editor posts to the top of the section above the initiating comment.
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)[reply]
@Mario662629: When an administrator blocks a user, they select an option from the following list:
[[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]][[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]][[WP:Copyright violations|Copyright infringement]]
Creating [[WP:Attack page|attack pages]]
Violations of the [[WP:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy
Persistent addition of [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|unsourced]] content
Creating [[WP:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] or other inappropriate pages
Using Wikipedia for [[WP:Spam|promotion]] or [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]] purposes
[[WP:Spam|Promotion]] / [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertising]]-only account
[[WP:Edit warring|Edit warring]]
Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]][[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]][[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or violations of the [[WP:Harassment|harassment]] policy
Making [[WP:No legal threats|legal threats]][[WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|Arbitration enforcement]][[WP:CTOP|Contentious topic]] restriction
[[WP:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]
Abusing [[WP:Sockpuppetry|multiple accounts]]
Repeatedly triggering the [[WP:Edit filter|edit filter]][[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|Sockpuppetry]]
Long-term abuse
Clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]]
Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked
{{anonblock}}{{anonblock}}<!-- Likely a school based on behavioral evidence -->{{school block}}{{rangeblock}}{{blocked proxy}}{{uw-upeblock}}<!-- Undisclosed paid editing for advertising or promotion -->{{uw-ublock}}<!-- Username violation, soft block -->{{uw-uhblock}}<!-- Username violation, hard block -->{{uw-causeblock}}<!-- Username represents a non-profit, soft block -->{{uw-ublock-wellknown}}<!-- Username represents a well-known person, soft block -->{{uw-ublock-double}}<!-- Username closely resembles another user, soft block -->{{uw-uhblock-double}}<!-- Attempted impersonation of another user, hard block -->{{uw-softerblock}}<!-- Promotional username, soft block -->{{uw-spamublock}}<!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}}<!-- editor only attempts to add blacklisted links, see [[Special:Log/spamblacklist]] -->{{uw-vaublock}}<!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->{{CheckUser block}}{{checkuserblock-wide}}{{checkuserblock-account}}{{Tor}}{{webhostblock}}{{colocationwebhost}}{{OversightBlock}}
Your first two are not among these, and your third is covered by {{subst: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)[reply]
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 {{subst: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)[reply]
Template:Uw-coi
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Missing (?) level 4 warning template
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)[reply]
This edit request to Template:Uw-npov1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'm thinking we should add a parameter for edits that are obviously not neutral instead of edits that merely seem to not be neutral. Something that would change the wording slightly. E.g. "Your edit to X was not neutral in nature" vs. "your edit to X was reverted because it did not seem neutral". Thoughts? »Gommeh (he/him)17:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
