Template talk:Uw-coi-username

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, please discuss this template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace instead of here.

Anomie's edit[edit]

Anomie, I have some objections to your edit.

This template does not need to introduce the user to all the subtleties of the username policy. The username policy is clear that we shouldn't just instablock such accounts, but the fact is that if they keep editing under a company name without trying to address the issues, they are giving everyone on Wikipedia the ammo to assume they are a spammer and block them. In this message, it's much better to make a strong statement saying that they need to change their username.
{{singlenotice}} is pretty but inaccurate. The template doesn't take an article parameter (and I don't see how it could).

rspεεr (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first, warning templates that do not reflect actual policy are not acceptable, no matter if it's somehow "better" to lie to people. Take it up at WT:UTM for wider discussion. In fact, if you don't mind we should copy this entire section to WT:UTM and redirect this talk page there. I should have made that redirect earlier.

Regarding the second, you're right. I'll look into updating {{singlenotice}} to handle it. Anomie ⚔ 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to lie to anyone. I consider it quite realistic that many of these users end up blocked one way or another, and that changing their name is the best way to avoid it. (Remember, I'm trying to present a credible alternative to the common practice of just IAR-blocking them outright.)

I understand your concern, though; a warning that they might end up blocked might end up being read by admins as a justification for blocking them. How about a simple recommendation of "You should change your username"? rspεεr (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recommendation is fine, as far as I'm concerned. Admins abusing IAR is a separate issue, and unfortunately something not likely to be fixed. Anomie ⚔ 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question and a comment...[edit]

1. Should placing this template on a user's talk page add that user to Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over, like {{usernameconcern}} does?

2. Whenever I place this template, I usually type {{subst:uw-coi-username}} ~~~~. I noticed this puts my signature in a dotted-line box. This does not happen with other templates. Is this a bug or was it intentional? --Tckma (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not happen if I omit the space, i.e. {{subst:uw-coi-username}}~~~~. --Tckma (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

I have made a revision over here (also note an alternative version on its talk page here). Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? NJA (t/c) 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for Twinkle[edit]

I've fixed this template so it works properly with Twinkle. The "article link" field was not getting linked. But I can't tell where the documentation is automagically transcluded from in order to update it. Pcap ping 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out: it was all produced by {{Singlenotice}}. I've added the extra text option besides the article link now because there's no provision in singlenotice to omit it if "article" is present, and I did not want to mess with that one. Pcap ping 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous wording[edit]

"You may have a conflict of interest" is ambiguous - it could be taken as meaning "you are permitted to have a conflict of interest". I propose to chang this to "It is possible that you have a conflict of interest", unless someone can come up with better wording. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 09:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absense of any dissent, I've made the change. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is likely that you have a conflict of interest" ? -- œ ^™ 04:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar template for IPs?[edit]

Is there a variation on this template for IPs? I've just used {{uw-coi}} at user talk:80.177.150.129, but that doesn't seem quite right. It is unclear if a corporate IP is a single user or shared. In this case a set of 8 sequential IP numbers pertain to the same advocacy organization. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-coi}} given to an IP seems fine to me. –xeno^talk 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about combining some elements of {{welcome-ip}}, that would encourage registration. So long as the editor worked in good faith, it would be a good thing to do, but if they were seeking to spam... well, wp:BEANS. There used to be a specific template for corporate IPs, but I can't seem to find it today. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other options are listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Miscellanea. Perhaps {{shared IP corp}} ????

What about COI usernames?[edit]

COI usernames may relate to people, not only organisations - the template wording should be updated to reflect this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

The present wording of the template (if a related article is given as a parameter) is "I saw how you edited ...". This is really poor grammar, and should be written as "I saw that you edited ..." instead. Comments? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good opportunity to be bold. NTox · talk 21:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording a little harsh?[edit]

So blatant username violations get sent to UAA, but for more ambiguous cases, new users get this message. Is the wording and bolding on this a little harsh? I'm reminded of the scene from Independence Day: Bam! "Welcome to Earth!" DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category Maintenance[edit]

Both {{Uw-coi}} and {{Uw-coi-username}} contain the comment THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. with that category being Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Currently, it has over 41,500 pages in it, so I think this category has been a bit neglected. Would anyone be opposed to a bot performing automatic removal of this category after a period of time? Say, two weeks, or a month? I think it would help make this category useful again for those that might try to keep an eye on it, if it contained only recent notices.

This is posted to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#COI_category_maintenance.3F. In the effort to keep discussion centralized, please reply there instead of here. ^Avic _ennasis @ 18:00, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 18:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI Usernames again[edit]

I see that several areas of COI are covered specifically for entities (non-individuals) but not for individuals ie. User:HughOsgood created and maintains Hugh Osgood. I see that WP:AUTO covers this briefly by saying it's strongly discouraged, though not forbidden. Is this only if a COI notice is clearly marked and displayed by user in question? (I am affiliated with xyz, etc...) ? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 12:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maths[edit]

Keen your numbers up to 10 if your 5-8 Or 20 if you’re ur 8-10 Every number if you older in the years ahead 92.0.66.137 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]