Template talk:Pp-usertalk

Template:Pp-usertalk is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. 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 template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Way too specific[edit]

This template, as it is, is basically a laundry list of ways to disrupt Wikipedia and make this sort of protection needed. Can we just replace the whole list with "making disruptive edits" or similar? Gracenotes ^T § 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --ais523 11:04, 12 April 2007 (U T C)

Reword[edit]

The category associated with this template is for both user and user talk pages (there is no pp-user template). I would like to reword the template message to something like this:

This page associated with Example (talk · contribs · block log · arb · rfcu · ssp · SPI^confirmed_suspected) has been protected from editing (protection log). If you wish to edit it, please ask an administrator to do so on your behalf, or request unprotection.

~~Even better, a namespace conditional could be used to decide whether it's a user page or talk page.~~ Look at the source to see the conditional. Thoughts? CMummert · talk 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is (provisionally) good. We would otherwise need a conditional which allows us to remove the name of the user completely. These templates (also {{pp-semi-usertalk}}) are used for more than protecting against the page owner. The sentence about expired blocks needs changing now that it has lost its context. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that sentence; how's the version now? CMummert · talk 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really dislike the username; I want to protect a user talk page to prevent other editors from taunting the banned user; this template now is useless for that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out the username is on the current version as well. The new version makes no claims about the user except that it is their page, which will always be true because the template uses PAGENAME. And, as someone else pointed out, if a user page is protected the logs of the user are probably relevant.

Anyway, would having a small=yes parameter suffice for the instances where the username is not desired? CMummert · talk 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it doesn't really explain why the page is protected. Is there a way to code something like "user=blank" to omit the entire phrase? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reason= field that replaces the username with a more specific reason. Here are some examples. CMummert · talk 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired." is misleading at best, and plain wrong at worst, IMO. Just because someone goes to a protected user page for the purpose of issuing a new message, doesn't mean the block has expired. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So: {{Editprotected}}. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "may mean" be better? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going with that for now; restore the request if this isn't the desired outcome. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superscript[edit]

{{editprotected}}The superscript looks weird, would normal or small text be better?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template just itself calls {{vandal-m}}, which produces Example (talk · contribs · block log · arb · rfcu · ssp · SPI^confirmed_suspected) given a username (here "Example"). I'm unsure of to what we should change it in that case (partly as I don't particularly find it wierd); do you have any suggestions for improvement? Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I also don't think it looks wierd, and there's nothing that can be changed in this template to alter the appearance anyway. Happy‑melon 11:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to understand this template. If a user abuses their own talk page, can't they be blocked from editing it as a block option without the need to protect the talk page? --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:Accessability ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Come back when you have consensus... —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 August 2013[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

|small={{{small|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

To:

|small={{{small|}}}
|right={{{right|}}}
|demospace={{{demospace|}}}

This allows use of the new pp-meta parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 1 February 2014[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've created a version in the sandbox which will work for both semi and full protection (also see this). Would a template editor/admin please check the code and copy it over. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 February 2014[edit]

This edit request to Template:Usertalk-sprotect has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This redirect needs an Rcat (redirect category template) added. Please modify it as follows:

from this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:pp-semi-usertalk]]
[[Category:Protection templates]]

to this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:Pp-usertalk]]

{{Redr|fully protected}}

[[Category:Protection templates]]

WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE INNER LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.

This will defeat a double redirect (Template:Pp-semi-usertalk also redirects to Template:Pp-usertalk) and update the category populations. Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Redrose64! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm not sure which part of the code the problem lies, but the second template (the one for semi-protected) has a redundant request unprotection link at the end. Could someone fix it? Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 10:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) I'm making localizations of the template and it was bothering me. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 12:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to convert this template to Lua[edit]

There is currently a proposal to convert this and other protection templates to Lua at Module talk:Protection banner#Proposal to convert all protection templates to use this module. Please join this discussion over there if you are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]