Template talk:User Wikipedia

message: I decided to change this template so that it displayed "wiki" rather than "wik" because I felt that it was a better description and that there was enough space for four letter. --R6MaY89 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I've been bold and replaced the above cat with :Category:Wikipedia administrators, as that one sounds better and is older. The prefix of "User Wikipedia/" is bulky and cumbersome when compared to the nicer, simpler, older, version. Wikipedia:Use common names. Blackcap (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced [[:Category:User Wikipedia/Administrator]] 

message: :Image:Admin mop.PNG is used for the administrator userbox. According to the image page, though, the image is copyright. Doesn't that mean it can't be used on user pages and should be removed from the userbox? --Angr (tɔk) 11:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was designed for userpages. It is the wikipedia logo which is not a copyright infrigment on userpages. If you are suspicious of the copyright images of wikipedia or wikimedia logos, please ask the board members before taking action or suggesting action as board owns the copyrights and will decide if its ok or not. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't take or suggest any action, I was just asking. It's just there's been a lot of talk about the use of copyrighted images on user pages, and I wanted to make sure my own user page was OK, and I found that both :Image:Admin mop.PNG and :Image:Wikimedia.png are copyrighted. Okay, they're copyrighted by Wikimedia, so maybe it's okay, but I wasn't sure. --Angr (tɔk) 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. sorry I got excited with that comment ^_^' --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator image 

message: from User talk:AzaToth
why did you rvv my edit there? I rvv:ed it back, according to the ongoing deswitching. →AzaToth 22:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you are breaking my and many other people;s userpage.  You should fix all userpages prior to doing that. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no difference, they are only extracted, there were only four that was missplaced that I forgot to put back. Perhaps it's one of them you are refering to. and please be more civil. →AzaToth 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That revert breaks at least my userpage and god knows how many others. Please make responsinble edits to tempates, whatever you are doing I see no discussion over it. I would have (and had) labeled it vandalism for removing 5000 bytes from a template. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all responsiple edits, the only thing that is made, is that the templates are split onto their new tem,paltes, and a temporary redirect is made from this templates. So please stop your dissruptive work. →AzaToth 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Guys, you need to work this out on this page without revert warring over the template. I'm reverting it back to what it was before this revert war started and getting out of the mess. Whatever consensus develops here, respect it when the page is unlocked. -- Essjay  Talk • Contact 12:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That defeats the purpose of templates. So al templates should be subst just bacuse some irresponsible person will break it? Currently many wikipedia userpages are broken because of irresponsible edits of some people on this template basicaly declaring ownership without caring what their actions are leading to. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User wikipedia]] 

message: I have protected this page to prevent the usage of meta-templates. Please note that WP:AUM is a very important piece of policy, and that userboxes are not and never have been an issue that is important enough to justify violating it. Further reversion will be interpreted as vandalism and attempts to facilitate a DDOS attack on Wikipedia, and I will block for it. Phil Sandifer 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not missuse your admin privileges, and unprotect the page at once. Perhaps you should read the history log first before you are doing things like this. We are breaking out the templates from here, but as a temporary solution they are redirected until all user pages has been converted. →AzaToth 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that. It completely misunderstands the priority of what you're doing. It is preferable to have user-pages broken temporarily. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion might take a couple of weeks (or months), I don't think thats "temporary". But even so, what you are doing is wrong. →AzaToth 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am aware, I was in the progress to remove the meta templates from this when snowspinner stepped in. What I had done was exctacting the templates to their new templates and as a temporary solution to not break user pages, include them here until userpages in converted. I don't like your radical mission to obliverate meta-templates in one instance, I prefer to make it more slowly to not dissrupt wikipedia (in contrast to your behavour). →AzaToth 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I don't at all consider temporarily breaking (well blanking) this User page template as being any disruption to Wikipedia.  -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The policy have nothing to do with this, as I said above, I was in the progress to remove the meta templates, but not dissrupting wikipedia or her userpages. →AzaToth 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Burden the servers with meta-templates against policy, or disrupt userpages. Tough choice there. Screw the userpages. Honestly, userspace is not sacred, and Wikipedia is not a free Web host. FCYTravis 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have sorted it so that no longer do any pages use the switch function (the meta problem). So the problem is fixed. There is no reason to change the current version of this template, so the protection can remain or whatever, I don't really care. A question though, can't normal users see the hsitory of a page when it's protected? All someone had to do was visit the old version and use it to fix all the userpages.--Commander Keane 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing stopping normal users from viewing history. The only thing they can't do is edit or move :) FCYTravis 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If this were a vote (which it apparently isn't), I'd vote unprotect and revert.  Explains why the hell my RCP userbox went away without any changes to its source.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-templates

message: Hey All.  Since the template is protected can I make a request of someone with power?  Can we please remove the extra lines at the top of this template or at least put them on noinclude?  Thoes lines carry over to user pages (and it makes me sad to have whitespace on my userpage where I could stick a userbox).  Thanks!   --ShakataGaNai 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extra lines 

message: Alright, apparently the major concern of WP:AUM is that it is a DoS vulnerability.  So I think there should be a way to force this template to be substituted whenever included on userpages.  I'm pretty sure that's not a feature in the current software, but it should not be hard to add this ability.  Using __FORCE_SUBSTITUTE__ or some other keyword in the template itself would cause all instances of  to be converted to , thus alleviating the major complaint of WP:AUM.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Potential Solution? 

message: Not to be pointy but if this doesn't get unprotected and made useable again, it might as well be deleted, it is useless in its current state. xaosflux Talk/CVU 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do... 

message: I've tried to read through all this technobabble mumbo-jumbo, but it's really just so ridiculously uninteresting that it reminds me why I'm a finance major :-). Can someone please just tell me how I can put the equivalent of what was  on my user page??? JHMM13 (T | C)   22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try .  Sam Korn 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright 

message: I think this should be unprotected, since they have been split, it can now be unprotected safely, but I don't think the admins involved should have done so anyway. Ian13ID:540053 16:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction made.  Bring it up for unprotection at WP:RFPP.  Sam Korn 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a list of what old parameters should be mapped to what new templates on the page would also be helpful. I've been updating pages as they show up on 'What links here', but as that is broken and doesn't list all pages it'll be a while before they all get sorted out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence I chose something that was undeniably not false to make the default.  Sam Korn 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: remove the following:
<noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia userboxes|Userbox wikipedia]]</noinclude>
The "Wikipedia userboxes" category is not for userboxes, but rather for userbox preview pages and other project related articles. - TCorp 13:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I've been reading the above, and I can't work out why one extremely obvious thing hasn't been pointed out at all...
Why do we even have this userbox? I mean, come on, anyone who has a userpage is a member of Wikipedia. I'm probably being extremely anal or something but I don't see any point in this userbox, and I am very amused that such a furore has been raised about it without anyone mentioning the obvious.
I can't have been the only one to say this, surely. Then again, maybe this template was a link from WP:BJAODN and I missed it. That'd make sense, I guess... --Ciaran H 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to be aware of is that this template () used to contain code for over a dozen different userboxes—not the most basic one you currently see.  In that earlier form (you can view the source, but please take care not to press the "Save page" button), the code for several userboxes was included in this template, and the  template was used to select and show the correct code for the requested userbox.  So, for example, putting  on a page would result in this userbox's switch template showing the administrator userbox.  Since this violated Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (now deprecated), there was various locking and reverting until all the code for the various userboxes was forked off onto individual template pages (e.g., ).  The current form, while admittedly stating the obvious, is generally not the subject of controversy.  — Jeff | (talk) | 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... why? 

message: Can we move this to userspace? The Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_22#Template:User_wikipedia doesn't seem to be reaching a consensus, so I'm proposing the German userbox solution. --Swift 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to move to userspace 

message: Hello, (echoes), seems this talk page has been empty since 2006, I hope you brought wine and provisions. My edit request seems simple, and wondering if a consensus somewhere came to the present mislink, but please link this page to "Wikipedian" and not "Wikipedia". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have boldly done this, even though there are 2,000 transclusions, because it appears to make much more sense. It appears that Wikipedia community did not exist as an article when this template was created, and nobody has bothered to change the link since its creation. If this is controversial, any template editor is welcome to revert my edit and start a discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. There is general consensus that "Wikipedia" should be capitalized. Another suggestion, "User Wikipedian", also had traction, but requires more intrusive work or usurpation as there is another identically named userbox over there. I'll pick the original suggestion as the path of least resistance. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:User wikipedia →  – Wikipedia is capitalised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't know that there is anything controversial about this move.  Since there is little chance of anyone contesting a capitalization fix, you might want to try WP:RM#TR first. - ZLEA T\C 19:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I suppose a better move might be to :Template:User Wikipedian given the changes to the template that have taken place over time, but that is occupied by a somewhat more tendentious template. Dekimasuよ! 04:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't foresee bringing the subpages into alignment with the new title here being controversial; feel free to do it boldly, @1234qwer1234qwer4. Sdkb talk 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 June 2022