MediaWiki talk:Semiprotectedpagewarning

Small tweaks
I've added a link to WP:SPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed registered->established, as this also prevents edits by newly registered users xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  20:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition?
So what is the definiton of established users according to Wikipedia standards on this? -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPP (and other places) it is ~96 hours after account creation. This is also the period during which page moves are restricted.  It is not advertised on the message to comply with the views in WP:BEANS. —  xaosflux  Talk  04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove margin-bottom
Recently MediaWiki started to show protection log entry under this message (see example). Unfortunately there is no way to include this log inside the frame (unless you add styles to Common.css). The least we could do is remove the space between this message and the log. Also, the outer div now has, so this message doesn't need another id.

Please remove  and. —AlexSm 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks a little weird...

Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.
 * Are you sure you want me to make the edit? Shana tova !--   L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked to remove the bottom margin only, not the padding as well :) —AlexSm 01:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the clarification! Shana tova !--  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change the link Wikipedia:new contributors' help page to New contributors' help page. The lowercase "new" just looks a bit odd. Goodvac (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also piped the link so the "Wikipedia:" part is not shown. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Goodvac (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2016
Semi Protection to Prevent Vandalism Using on Wikipedia.

86.80.198.70 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The message you propose here is much more restrictive. Read WP:SEMI for a better understanding of the protection level. non-admin response — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2018
Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. 2600:1003:B02A:AFC:19D8:537D:70B8:6AA2 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * it is not clear what you want to change about this message. — xaosflux  Talk 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2020
Please change If you need help getting started with editing, see the Questions page. to If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. This will send new editors directly to the most appropriate venue for them to get help. Sdkb (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I'm thinking about it, see the section I just added below. Sdkb (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll send an invite to both talk pages to get some input from others on this. Sdkb (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are now four of us supporting this and no one opposing. Is that sufficient consensus to implement? Sdkb (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the rush is. It's only been a few hours since this was even raised for discussion, and this page has been here for 14 years.  It's not going anywhere.  But, OK, I'll change it for you, and anyone who objects can say something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the hastiness; I just like to get things wrapped up so I can move onto others without worrying that I'll forget about a proposal I've made and it'll get archived without action. Sdkb (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional input
[if you're coming from a talk page invite, please share your view of the suggestion here] - Sdkb (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * [from Teahouse] Support. The current link target leads to a portal, which I think new users would not find helpful. I also don't think many are interested in going through pages of documentation (MoS) to find out what the guidelines for editing are, and that they can be guided to experienced users who can give some info and links to sections for reference. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I think that would be a great idea. At the Teahouse we could actually answer individual questions to help new editors better understand Wikipedia, it would be much better than pushing them to the question page. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ  • Talk∕Contribs 15:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support any change to a normal looking page over a portal or tutorial style page that has a problem with editor retention and accessibility problems for disabled (10%) or Mobile viewers (60%)...just link them to the one page they can get help....no more clicking....no more scrolling. 2 clicks and a few hooks is all you get to retain a reader.-- Moxy 🍁 23:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing that would help would be renaming the teahouse. We have been told many times by many people that they only pick the teahouse link when it's explained its a help forum or the break room (the meaning to most academics). Countless newbies have asked why it's called the teahouse if it's a talk forum.-- Moxy 🍁 01:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support a renaming of the Teahouse (perhaps concurrently with a renaming of the Help Center to make it clear that's the place for more complex questions, not for newbies). But that'd be something to bring up there, and I suspect a lot of editors are probably emotionally attached to the current name at this point, so we might encounter some opposition. Sdkb (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Concern: I see that the requested change has already been implemented. However, I am not convinced it's for the best. Firstly, I fear it may simply lead to everyone who can't edit a semi-protected page simply asking at the Teahouse whey they can't edit a semi-protected page, and being referred to the contents of the autoconfirmed link in the notice. (I've just tweaked the target destination to add better clarity.) Second, it does no harm to link to a page offering various solutions to spread the load of questions, and to expect the user to read through it. Thirdly, saying " see the Teahouse" means nothing to any new user. "Ask at the Teahouse" is the proper wording. But asking at the Teahouse might not be the right approach that we want for this particular editing issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that phrasing issue is purely my fault. I forgot to change the wording to "please visit". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Muting the coloring a bit
It seems a little inappropriate that this notice is emphasized so much with the red colored box and all. I mean, if an editor has permission to edit a page, is it really that important for them to know it's semi-protected? Can we mute the color scheme a bit here to help other more important notices stand out more? Sdkb (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2020
Can you add that after 4 days and 10 edits, you can edit semiprotected pages? Laugh338 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it does already link to WP:Autoconfirmed, and there's the matter that if you're using Tor, the requirements are higher than that. So I'm not sure if we need to specify the precise requirements. Do we know if this notice appears for users who are not autoconfirmed? I come across it whenever editing a semiprotected/etc. page, even though I'm obviously long since autoconfirmed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ as there are several other cases that won't lead to a static number. — xaosflux  Talk 20:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse line
I propose that we remove the second sentence, If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. Three reasons: &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Only editors who are autoconfirmed will ever see this notice, many of whom are veterans, so it's not particularly well-targeted.
 * 2) There's no reason people editing semiprotected articles would have more questions than those editing articles at higher or lower protection levels. If we want this line, it should go in the universal editnotice, not here.
 * 3) It's excess verbiage that causes the message to go onto two lines for New Vector and detracts from the other editnotices we're often showing.

Notified: WT:Usability. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2022
Please action the above. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Pings to who have worked on this before.  Regarding your points above: (1) Autoconfirmed is a very low bar, that seems like more of an argument to un-show this to extendedconfirmed; (2) There are immensely more people that can't edit at higher then SPP then can; (3) if "New Vector" wants to waste so much screen space that things scroll that's really it's problem (and a br/ could also fix that...). I'm not strongly opposed to removing this, but it seems to have some utility and has been maintained and updated for a very long time. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ (for now) this still seems somewhat useful, keeping in mind that TH is a good resource for new editors - especially upon encountering their first SPP articles. Furhter discussion is welcome of course. — xaosflux  Talk 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 May 2023
Replace  with   to get the proper section mark (§) displaying. It's not the biggest issue this page has, but it's a baby step. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made it match the semi version of the output. Izno (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Izno, you left out a pipe, I think, causing a display error. (I do like the change you're trying to make, though; it flows a lot more naturally.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, missing the pipe would cause that issue.
 * Yes, also, not having the octothorpe is by design as having synced it to the semi version, which also has no octothorpe. :) Izno (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)