Template talk:Nothanks

New template

I spend so much time telling well-meaning newcomers that we can't accept copied web pages that I figured a template was in order. – ClockworkSoul 19:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad I found this. I think I had to write about ten postings like this in the last week. Much easier now. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Parameter

Which parameter should we use in this case? I think a link to article AND url would be better, no? Point out to the editor that we can't use info directly from another site. Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 8 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

The parameter you're supposed to use is the article name without brackets. I suppose any contributor who sees the template on their talk page and follows the article will notice the URL (since the rest of the article's content was deleted!) --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

When reverting copyvios (the newest edits), we can indicate the source and it's copyright info as additional info below the template on the user_talk. — Jeandré, 2005-07-24t08:55z

I don't think it's productive to have it automatically add a section heading; it clutters the talk page. I'm taking it out, but if there's a major reason to, please discuss here. --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't clutter the talk page at all. As an experienced wikipedian, I am sure you know that there can be as many as thirty topics on a talk page. The automatic heading helps in three ways (a) most patrollers (or whomever else uses this template) just end up manually typing in the heading anyway, thus making the template less efficient, the opposite of the point of a template. Some people are serial copyright, vandalizers, etc... When some offenses have headings and some don't, it is harder to determine how many offenses the person has committed, because the ones without headings get overlooked. (c) This template is linked to the copyright template, and is automated. The automation works so much better when we can just copy and paste it, rather than have to go back and forth and try to remember the exact title, and then type it in, especially for long, mispelled or unfamiliar article titles. I am not an admin (dont' want it), but I will try to find one to see if this can be reversed.--Esprit15d 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

policy page link

I wonder if there's not a better (more specific) policy page we could link to on the template. Wikipedia:Copyrights is unsatisfactory b/c it's about using wikipedia articles as sources for outside work, whereas this template covers the reverse. My suggestions:

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the most specific, but is intended for those on patrol, not those who need to know about copyright.
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations is similarly aimed at patrollers (and copyright owners).
• Wikipedia:Fair use is probably the best choice. It contains guidelines about proper usage.
• Wikipedia:Public domain is somewhat helpful, but obviously if we're tagging something copyvio, its source isn't likely to be in the public domain.

If I can get one person's support and no one's objection, I'll change it to Fair Use (option 3). --Chaser (T) 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article...

I just went to send this message to a user who had added a section to an existing article that they'd cut-and-pasted from another source, and realized that that part sounds odd when referring to limited copyvios, ones that don't cover the article. I certainly don't want to suggest that someone rewrite an entire established article in their own words just to deal with a copyvio! Maybe it should read "perhaps you would like to rewrite the relevent material in your own words" or something similar? --Aquillion 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, I would even leave the word "relevant" out. JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a heading

The template should come with a heading, like ==Copyright problems with your edits to [[{{{1}}}]]==. There are several reasons for this:

• First, the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page says to add merely {{subst:nothanks | PageName}} ~~~~ to the offender's Talk page. If you follow these instructions, it does not add a header to the Talk page and instead folds in the copyright complaint with the last section, which is wrong.
  • Whenever I edit someone's talk page that already contains sections, I use the + button at the top of the page. In order to have a meaningful edit summary, you need to fill in a title. Therefore, you get duplication. Whenever I edit a blank talk page, I don't see the benefit of a heading. JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Second, it should be consistent with the behavior of other Wikipedia copyright-related Talk templates, such as Template:Image source, Template:Image copyright, and Template:Idw-pui.
  • No, it should be consistent with warning templates like {{test}}, {{civil1}}, etc. JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Third, having a standardized title for copyright violation warnings makes it easier for other editors and admins to recognize repeat offenders—you'll see the same warning repeated multiple times, rather than multiple ad-hoc titles.
  • I don't see that. JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Fourth, if you really want to edit the title you can always click edit a second time.
  • It's a lot easier just to click edit once and add a header if you really want to. JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Fifth, see also the comments by Esprit15d above.
  • See Nlu's comments above. JYolkowski // talk 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

—Steven G. Johnson 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

new related template

I've just created {{nothanks-add}}, based on this template, for cases where a user that has already been welcomed adds copyrighted material to an existing article. Comments are of course welcome. Thryduulf 10:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW

The version of the nthanks I just used is a great improvement over the previous versions. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article

I am constantly substituting the template and them manually removing this language in a separate edit. While this language works some of the time, often (certainly more than half the time) it is an invitation for recreation of an article that is inappropriate for other reasons. For example, a great deal of pages deleted as copyvios are cut and pastes of myspace pages and the like—subjects we never want an article on, and that if they weren't copyvios, could be speedily deleted under CSD A7. The only way to fix the problem is removal of the language or adding some guidance following it, such as "but note that articles must be on notable topics which cite to reliable sources which verify their content...WP:COI etc." I think that's beyond the scope of this template.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Added this template to the list of User Warnings

See WP:UTM. I'm not sure why it wasn't there already - seems like quite an important template. I just had to use it myself, and took quite a while trying to find it. Terraxos 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

Would Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials be a good link to have in the "If the external website belongs to you" paragraph? Bovlb (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

transcluded or subst'd?

Should this template be subst'd or transcluded? -- œ^™ 04:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituted, I would think. I believe that's the case for all uw- style templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)