UESPWiki talk:Messages

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995

Related Discussions
Archived discusssions about the site's Messages

The purpose of this page is to make it easier for editors to add standard warnings and notices to user talk pages. The idea behind doing it this way rather than setting up some templates with standard messages is that with these messages it is very easy to customize the message as appropriate for the situation. With existing templates such as Template:Blocked you have to either take the entire message exactly as is, or write a new message from scratch. With these messages you can start with a generic message that includes all the appropriate links and recommended information, then tweak just one sentence, or add a couple of extra details.

The idea was originally Aristeo's, but I've made some modifications. For one thing, I've put it into the UESPWiki namespace so that it's more obvious that editors are welcome to edit the messages. I've included some ideas I've seen people mention, such as the fact that having a warning message in a red box with a stop icon is more official-looking than just a plain message. I've also tried to expand the messages to include more links to relevant help pages and policy pages.

But the point here is to make these messages useful for editors, so the question is: does everyone think these are useful? Are there changes that need to be made? Different types of messages that are needed? Other ideas for how to do this? --Nephele 01:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 Spamming Blockings 2 Blanking 3 The Welcome message 4 Information Already Exists

[edit] Spamming Blockings

Alright, this has kinda been on my mind for the last day or so, but should we even bother putting block messages on the talk pages of spammers? I mean, it seems unnecessary, as long as the IP address is still used by a spammer, but what happens if that changes? I've heard plenty of stories about spammers using 'zombie' computers to spam a lot of sites at once. If there's no block message on their talk page, and they are unable to create an account, they'll have no idea why they can't edit it. Of course, the chances of this happening are a extremely low, due to the number of IPs on the internet and the relativily small number of IPs that edit our wiki. So, is it worth the extra work, or not? If it is an issue of to much work for certain admins, I can handle the messages, I just don't want to do it if it would be considered a waste of time. --Ratwar 20:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't blocked IPs get some sort of message stating that they're blocked when they try to post something? We could always customize that message, explaining how to appeal the block and all. Just have to figure out where it is. Somewhere in the Mediawiki stuff, but may be hard to find the exact one... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 22:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not totally sure, since I've never been blocked, but adding a message about how to appeal the block (if it isn't already there would be helpful). I'm not an expert at Mediawiki, and I'm not really full of time currently.--Ratwar 13:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

The message that appears for blocked accounts is at Mediawiki:Blockedtext. It already includes some info about how to appeal block, but more could be added to clarify that if there's no message on the talk page it's because the IP was a proxy server and/or used by a spammer. --Nephele^Talk 00:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Blanking

I notice there isn't a warning for unexplained blanking, only a message, does it not count as vandalism? Volanaro 14:54, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

In most cases, blanking only warrants a notice. Under Assume Good Faith, we assume that the editor made a mistake (didn't understand how wiki editing works, for example) instead of assuming that it was intentional. Blanking doesn't provide any clear evidence of intentional bad faith, unlike for example adding obscenities to a page, for which there is no reason to "accidentally" be typing them on a UESP article. In particular, the recent example where you used the message does not in any qualify as vandalism, so a friendly message is the appropriate response. Page blanking by itself would only qualify vandalism if done repeatedly, even after being given a notice. And at that point one of the other warning messages could easily be adapted for the situation. I'd rather do that than have a standard warning, which I'd guess would lead to more inappropriate uses than legitimate uses. --Nephele^Talk 15:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

ok, i guess that's fair enough Volanaro 15:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] The Welcome message

In order to ease pressure on the Recent Changes patrollers, I propose 2 additions to the standard Welcome message, a line about how to add your signature and one about how to use preview. Those are two common mistakes that come up for new editors and tend to drive up the the post counts. Some editors (who shall remain unnamed) make a living by adding the unsigned template to comments from new users ;)

In addition, in praxis only users that already have made an edit will get this message, so the comments about the sandbox might be superfluous. Here is a quick suggestion for the change:

Hello <Name>! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our Getting Started page for some tips, and use Show Preview to see your edit before saving. Please remember to sign your edits on Talk pages with 4 tilde (~). If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our mentors. Enjoy!

If/when approved, someone in-the-know would have to change the template ;) -- Cheers, Benould^•T•C 16:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

While I understand what you're trying to accomplish, I'm not sure that the welcome message is the best place to add such information. The vast majority of the unsigned talk page posts are from anonymous editors, and changing the welcome message won't have any effect on anonymous editors.

But your note made me realize that we're not taking advantage of a few features used by wikipedia. What I've done is modify a few of the messages that appear when you're editing a page. Talk pages now have an extra notice box telling people to sign their posts; all edit pages have a line directly below the Save page button recommending that editors preview the edit; anonymous editors also get an additional message pointing to the sandbox. Unfortunately, I'm sure there will still be editors who ignore the new messages. But there's nothing we can do to force people to read information. Hopefully the new messages will at least help those people who are willing to read what's on the page in front of them.

Also, FYI, anyone can change the welcome message; no special privileges are required. There's an editing section at the bottom of the page providing links to all of the actual messages. --Nephele^Talk 23:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Information Already Exists

I am requesting that a notice be made for checking if information already exists before adding it. This seems like a common problem and it would be much easier to handle with an admin approved message.
One example is:

Hello and welcome to UESPWiki! Thank you for your interest in the site. When adding information to a page, please check if that information already exists elsewhere on the site. Adding redundant information only means other editors must find and delete off the edited page. You may also want to check our Getting Started guide. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Puddle ^{Talk•Contribs.} 20:00, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

That is all.-Puddle ^{Talk•Contribs.} 20:00, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, people adding redundant information is a common problem. But 99% of the time it's not dealt with by adding a message to the user talk page. Normally, the edit just gets undone with an edit summary explanation of why it was undone. Or in the case of someone creating an article (which tend to be the cases that generate more discussion/feedback than routine redundancy), an explanation is given in the proposed deletion tag. Posting a message on a talk page every time just takes more work.

It also seems to cross the line from what's necessary to what's excessive. Especially with anonymous editors, we need to remember that more often than not, the next time that editor returns to the site, his/her IP address will be different. In that case, the editor will never see the message posted on the old IP's talk page (instead, it may confuse a future reader who is dynamically assigned that IP address). So messages shouldn't be counted upon as a reliable way to communicate with someone. Warnings are used because they have to be: we have to warn the user before blocking the IP address. But in many other circumstances, I don't think it's always necessary to proactively contact the editor: if the editor later returns to the site and wants to know what was done and why, the editor can post a question on the article talk page.

The situation today (with an anonymous IP posting the same redundant information in three separate places) is one of the rare exceptions where an editor is doing something repetitively and therefore contacting the editor may be useful as a way to prevent the information from getting posted ten more times. But I don't think we need a standardized message for every rare situation. If a message is only likely to be used a few times per year, and even then only with significant customization, then it seems better for everyone to just start with one of the existing notices and customize that. Just because the notice section says, for example "First Person," doesn't mean you have to use the message for that exact purpose. You can start by adding that message, and then replace the middle sentence with something more appropriate. --Nephele^Talk 20:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, that's what I did today, I'll just keep on doing that, but I've seen many cases of this, thus I considered it a good idea at the time.-Puddle ^{Talk•Contribs.} 22:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)