UESPWiki talk:Messages/Warn-Nonsense

Deliberate

Perhaps it would be worth changing this notice to say "Please do not deliberately add nonsense..." since we already have a notice for what appear to be inoccent mistakes. I don't want to change it myself in case someone opposes it, just a thought. --Volanaro 06:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I just think this may put users off wrongly issuing a warning, such as in this case. Any thoughts? --Volanaro 08:50, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I know what you mean, but the question isn't about people doing it deliberately. Somebody adding "zxczxczxc" once to a page is doing it deliberately but I wouldn't warn them; it's more likely to be a test edit than deliberate vandalism. I'd give them the "non warning warning" about test edits instead. Adding obscenities or making attacks is always vandalism. I think you were right to remove the warning from the edit you linked to but it can be a difficult call. I don't think the problem is with the wording of the warnings - some extra guidance on the page might be helpful though. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something like the following:

"Warnings for nonsense should not be favoured over the Nonsense, unless there is clear evidence to show the edit was not made in good faith."

This could be posted above the warning on the messages page like the one for spam --Volanaro 11:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

And how is that really any different than what's already on the article? There's already a statement: "Be sure that the edit(s) qualify as vandalism. If there is any possibility that the edit was actually made in good faith, use a notice instead." --Nephele^Talk 20:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

As the "instigator" of this discussion, I think Volananro makes a good point, although it should be sort of strong-yet-subtle. Maybe... "please do not willingly add nonsense..." and the Notice/Advice message should mention the cancel button.-Puddle 21:34, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, how about this, swapping the notices and warnings around on the messages? Again this may mean that some editors prioritise the notice over the warning. It may also be worth putting the notice in bold text as it is otherwise quite easy to miss, I myself only really noticed it after looking at the page several times and i am willing to bet there are other users who have had the same problem.--Volanaro 07:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

As for the main idea of swapping words on the warning message, I'd have to side with Rpeh. People willingly and deliberately add nonsense to try out editing. The actual intent is to judge. Also, I would like to say I think Puddle's warning was justified. The added text was within a link, making it harder to detect, but still hurting the wiki. Plus it was a two key combination, so it was most likely meant to be added, and it wasn't reverted in 8 minutes. Of course, I am very late in expressing this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I'm also totally against swapping notices and warning. Warnings are a much higher priority than Notices, and if we're having problems with users misusing the warning messages, then we need to deal with those users. Personally, I only use the warning and I write notices myself because I feel that a formulaic 'Notice' message to a new editor is a bit demeaning. Just as a side note, I feel that at least one of the notice messages (specifically 'Blanking') would be misused. In some ways, I feel the notices assume Good Faith for far too long. I am apparently in the minority on this issue(just by looking at past conversations).--Ratwar 11:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I guess we should forget about this idea for now then, everyone has made good points and it looks like it would be better if things stayed as they were. --Volanaro 13:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

The only thing i would suggest now is that the text above the warnings be put in bold text as otherwise it can be quite easy to miss. --Volanaro 16:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)