Texas

Current warn template for WP:UN doesn't fit for non-promotional accounts that appear to be in violation of WP:ISU. Does something like this work?

– Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created at Template:Uw-isu. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add a {{{details|}}} parameter between "Please stop." and "If you continue to...". The reason is so that the template can be used for stuff like Template:Uw-disruptive3. It is good to have consistency between messages, and the base uw messages allow for that. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a little confused, editor Aasim – do you want to replace |reason= and |page= with |details=? Don't really see how a |details= parameter would add anything to the existing parameters, which already seem to do the job you want to do. Do I need enlightenment? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is Template:Uw-disruptive3 has additional details between the "Please stop" and "If you continue to" message. Adding a details parameter would allow for the bullet point details to be preserved while standardizing the template. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the issue with using |extra= instead? @Awesome Aasim Izno (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would allow for this on Template:uw-disruptive3:

| extra = * If you are engaged in a content dispute, ... Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok so I got confused, extra is for the end. Details would be for the middle. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to give a level 2 disruption warning but couldn't use it because there is no content dispute involved. So it made me wonder why {{Uw-disruptive2}} and 3 have any need to mention content dispute at all? In any such case that I have ever seen, {{uw-ewsoft}} and {{uw-editwar}} have done that job. I have seen many cases of disruptive editing that just manages to avoid being categorised as vandalism.

So my proposal is that we remove the bullet points from ew-d2 and ew-d3, leaving just the current opening and closing paragraphs (making them consistent with ew-d1 and ew-d4).

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It occurs to me that this idea could be combined with Aasim's proposal immediately above. |details= could be used to supply the current "content dispute" text when that is relevant but omitted when it is not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this combined proposal too! Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a UW template warning an editor about the probably use of a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT? I couldn't find one. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't look like it. Would be a good idea to suggest to the village pump or something. Proto-worlder (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed the Huggle version of this had included the phrase "Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page". This could be a great addition to this warning before it asks the person to add references to the article, as it educated newcomers to go to the talk page for edits that may spark controversy. interstatefive  23:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Interstatefive: User warning templates have their talk pages redirect to this central one, so this talk page encompasses a wide variety of templates. Which one are you referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second level for the addition of unsourced content: Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. interstatefive  03:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done This doesn't look like a good idea - the problem with unsourced edits is that they are not sourced not that they are controversial, and adding a reference will likely make the edit uncontroversial and not need to use the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]