MediaWiki talk:Blocklogtext

message: 
Currently on the explanatory text for the block log, it says "See Wikipedia talk:Block log for discussion." This line should be removed because it is confusing newbies - this is obvious at a glance of Wikipedia talk:Block log; many newbies think it is a place to discuss blocks. The message was added when many logs were changing to use special pages rather than pages in the Wikipedia namespace. It presumably made sense then to make it easier to find the archived blocks. Nowadays Wikipedia talk:block log is mostly being used incorrectly and anyone wanting to view a block from before 2005 probably has a good reason and therefore knows what they're doing. Graham87 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Perhaps it should say something like 'Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents for any discussion of a block, and Wikipedia talk:Block log for discussion of this log itself.' --ais523 08:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that - but why would you want to discuss the block log? special:log/upload and special:log/protect don't have discussion links for their respective logs - maybe the block log was particularly buggy at first? There should probably also be a link to wikipedia:blocking policy in line with the protection log. Graham87 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggested wording would be to replace the link to wikipedia talk:block log (which is IMO not necessary) with "See Wikipedia:Blocking policy." I don't see the point of linking to ANI because it's about all admin actions, not just blocking, so it isn't directly relevant to the block log. Wikipedia talk:Block log is just out-of-date. Graham87 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right here; I was wondering whether the AN/I link was appropriate myself, and agree that the blocking policy is a better place. As for the discussion page, pending the creation of a Special talk: namespace (which apparently the developers are considering), it's probably best to leave it with the situation when people just ask if they're unaware of the MediaWiki talk space. --ais523 11:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Proto::► 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - it'll be much less confusing now. Graham87 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of link to Wikipedia talk:Block log link

message: Please make this message (current version) above Special:Log/block a bit shorter:
* remove "block" and "unblock" links as they are useful only to admins and I doubt anybody uses them anyway ("block" is available from contribs, "unblock" - from user block log),
* remove the duplicate link to Special:Blocklist,
* probably remove calculate a rangeblock - I never saw it actually work,
* maybe remove autoblockfinder tool - it is already linked from Special:Blocklist, where it is actually useful,
* maybe compact info about "User" and "Title" into 2 lines instead of 3.
— AlexSm 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Also, to play devil's advocate, I have used every link on that page.  PeterSymonds (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right ... you need a consensus to do a good thing and make a little cleanup. Of course, nobody asked for consensus when useless links were added to this message. And Special:Blocklist just has to be mentioned 2 times. — AlexSm 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: # Labels "User/Title" are now "Performer/Target"; this was discussed at MediaWiki talk:Alllogstext#Reworded field names; also please fix MediaWiki:Rightslogtext.
# The link to Special:BlockList is listed twice.
# (optional) Please move admin-only links to the bottom of the message.
— AlexSm 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I did the first part, it's logical and someone probably forgot to do that, the other 2 parts are bit controversial, may need better explanation. Thank you Petrb (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate link and changed input labels 

message: Replace [ unblock] with unblock, because there is a new special page: Special:Unblock. Francisco (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anomie⚔ 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock 

message: Please replace this content:
:
with this:
:
Reason: Toolserver returned a 404 error page. Francisco (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  the toolserver is undergoing maintenance right now, and it appears to be taking longer than expected. See WP:VPT#Reflinks. If you are still experiencing the 404s after a few days, please leave a note on WP:VPT so that people can work out the cause. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove dead link 

message: Please change the URL of the "calculate a rangeblock" tool to http://tools.wmflabs.org/blockcalc/, as this tool has migrated away from the Toolserver. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I also used a protocol-relative URL. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update URL 

message: Wrap the first sentence in sysop-show to hide it from non-admins. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to rearrange the sentence, otherwise non-sysops will see text that begins with lowercase "view". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of hiding the entire first sentence, so non-admins would see starting at "See also...". That said, I'm not too sure how rangeblocked IP's show up on the block log - is the calculator useful for a non-admin? — Train2104 (t • c) 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: — xaosflux Talk 12:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 21 March 2017 

message: Please change
:
to
:
i.e. remove the inline styles. The sysop-show class already hides things from non-sysops, see MediaWiki:Common.css. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 19:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 28 December 2023