Template talk:Protected page text/Archive 1

Protected edit request on 23 January 2014
Please modify this system message by changing: to: So that the user attempting to create a salted page will know why they are seeing that message. Thank you.

Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What about "protected from creation" instead of "salted"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, it's a linked word back to the policy, and both terms are accurate. Technical 13 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're going to make this message display better custom values for creation protection, I'd prefer a solution that works for all protection levels. Pages can also be create-protected with semi-protection or template protection (although template protection shouldn't be used for salting), so we should make it work the same way for those as it does for full protection. What would we want to do with the bulleted suggestions in the case of salting? At the moment they aren't displayed for full protection, but they are displayed for semi- and template protection. Also, I think it would be best to put the #ifexist parser function(s) in the main Protected page text and create new parameters for edit protection messages and create-protection messages, rather than cluttering the subtemplates with #ifexist calls. I'm deactivating the edit request for now while we work this out. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 April 2014
Change this:

to this:

In other words, decapitalize the first 't' in 'template editors'.

UpEpSilon (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2014
I propose that this template be changed to (or Template:Test-mode used) Edited 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Large amount of template content moved to Template:Protected page text/sandbox. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(I copied this from User:Gdfusion/Sandbox/ppt) I also propose that the template currently located at User:Gdfusion/Sandbox/contact_notify (which is transcluded into the edit I proposed above) be moved to a subpage of this page, in order to minimize cross-namespace transclusions.
 * This will change a couple of things. First of all, on a protected or semi-protected talk page, it will remove the edit request button, because as it is currently, the edit request button fails on those pages because it tries to edit the talk page itself, which is protected. See Special:Permalink/621993248 for a preview of how that would work.
 * Secondly, let's say user A wants to contact user B, but user B's talk page is protected, so user A can't leave a message on user B's talk page. Then, when user A tries to edit user B's talk page but fails, a new button will appear. This button will leave a message on user A's talk page, notifying user B. See User talk:Gdfusion/Sandbox for an example on how that would work.

Edit: User:Gdfusion/Sandbox/ping_talk_template should also probably be moved to a subpage of this page.

I give credit to, who initially suggested changing this template.

Sorry, this was really hard to explain. Please ask if you need clarification.

--gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 01:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse this change request, however would like it to sit for a couple of days for anyone to perform review and/or feedback. Sub page suggestion (protected) is: Template:Protected page text/semi/user_talk preload. , please reactivate the protected edit request in a couple of days to put this back in the queue. Good Work! —  xaosflux  Talk 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reactivate this request in a few days. Thanks for the support, Xaosflux :) --gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 01:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Using test-mode in the interface isn't a good idea. For the change itself, you definitely need to not have in this (you should probably just incorporate it into this template, instead of making it its own template). Also, checking #ifeq:  |  and { {#ifeq:  | User talk is redundant. The #ifexist check is unnecessary, and you should add another check to make sure they're on the root talk page and not a subpage (like an archive). Deactivating for now until these things are fixed. (Also, I've put your proposed version in the template's sandbox; please put your fixed version there instead of here.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.
 * Put button into template rather than transclude: ✅. The button itself, though, still needs another page for the preload. Can it be moved into a subpage of this page?
 * #ifexist check: ✅. This was initially to check if such a user existed, but I realized that a user doesn't have to have a talk page to exist.
 * You're right obviously that normally having both and  is redundant, but if you look at the way it's set up, there's a condition which executes when  !=  (this is the thing that the edit request button shows up only if talk page isn't the one that's protected). This is my fault because the bracket spacing was initially really bad (bad coding practice). It could just as easily go outside the brackets, of course, but I think this way keeps it more organized.
 * Adding a check to make sure they're on the root page: ✅. I initially set it up so that it would work if a subpage is protected and still ping the right user, but now I realize that just because the subpage is protected, the base user talk page might not necessarily be protected. —gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 04:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there's some mismatched and/or misplaced braces right now. I'll have time to fix them myself later, but if you want, you can fix them now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? They are —gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 16:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 August 2014
On Template:Protected page text/semi, please replace the existing call to protected page text with this one:

On Template:Protected page text/template, please replace the existing call to protected page text with this one:

On Template:Protected page text/full, please replace the existing call to protected page text with this one:

Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2016
I found an error in the message that appears when unauthorized users try to rename move-protected pages (e.g. Test). The protection log link under the second bullet point currently links to  instead of   -- SLV100 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when attempting to move a page (e.g. Test) the message is being viewed from Special:MovePage/Test and not from Test, so  evaluates to   instead of  . I think changing   to   should fix it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 11:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Switching  to   may work as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would only work for pages that are not subpages since  is   for all of ,  , etc. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would apparently fail in the opposite direction. It seems the special namespace does not have subpages.  produces . But #titleparts does work on special pages so your own code looks correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally didn't test it, my bad. Thanks for catching that. The Special namespace is special. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tested and added the above code by JJMC89.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Protected_page_text&diff=710359563&oldid=588720018] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJMC89 @Jo-Jo Eumerus @PrimeHunter: The fix resulted in a new problem for page titles with spaces (e.g. 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone, A Weekend in the City, Template:Edit fully-protected, etc.). The problem is caused by the titleparts parser function because the output always contains spaces instead of underscores regardless of or  being used. I propose using as shown below. And since will be used I also propose replacing  with. The following line should replace line 24 in the template code:  -- SLV100 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The requested change is in the sandbox. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It works for all context titles I tested at Special:ExpandTemplates so I have added it to the live template.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Protected_page_text&diff=next&oldid=710359563] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2016
The section link to "extended confirmed users" doesn't work since the section name was changed. Should be changed from extended confirmed users to extended confirmed users.

Techman224 Talk  04:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 May 2016
For the "Request unprotection" link, consider changing the nonexistent section link  to the page itself, or the renamed section:

— Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 04:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I used the new section heading, and tweaked the wording to match as well. Thanks for pointing this out! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2016
WP:ECP2016 concluded in August that 30/500 protection may be used by administrators to combat any form of disruption, not just in topics authorized by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, we should amend the text under protection-reason to read something along the lines of: While most articles can be edited by anyone, extended confirmed protection is sometimes necessary to prevent disruptive editing on controversial pages. I have sandboxed my proposed changes at Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed/sandbox (see diff). I've also added a link to Disruptive editing – feel free to leave that out if you feel it's unnecessary.

Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Icon for cascade protection
There is a request at MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected that the icon used for cascade protection should be turquoise. Is this a good idea and if so, can it be implemented here? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging template maintainer &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Now done. This template has an image parameter, so I just used that on MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 November 2017
Change:

| protection-message = This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can it.

to

| protection-message = This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users can it.

and change

| who-can-edit = An administrator or extended confirmed user

to

| who-can-edit = An extended confirmed user

Saying "extended confirmed" and "administrators" is redundant since all admins are automatically extended confirmed users. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not redundant. Admins are explicitly excluded from being automatically granted the extendedconfirmed user group unless manually added. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed text change
I am proposing changing the phrase If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change... to If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change.... Controversial changes, no matter how simple, should be discussed before an edit request is opened. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * After a few months of no objection, I'm opening an edit request. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: support change but cannot find that text on the specified subtemplate &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase was in the parent template. I have corrected the request. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
and its subpages,,  ,  , and  , are meant to be transcluded at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (which by default is fully protected). It would be possible to enable cascading-protection on these pages rather than having to actually fully protect them. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:1DF7:5A79:920F:AEF8 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 November 2018
Pending local upload and protection of files. — xaosflux  Talk 04:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Local upload and protection is now complete. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  12:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Got 'em. Even added your Interface one.  There are a few other places but I think grabbed the big ones.  Will check later for others. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Protected page text
Change the line:

to:

Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed
Change the line:

to:

Template:Protected page text/full
Change the line:

to:

Template:Protected page text/semi
Change the line:

to:

Template:Protected page text/template
Change the line:

to:

Per this RfC &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  02:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. It isn't broken. The old padlocks actually look like padlocks, unlike these fugly icons, which look like shopping bags. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 03:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * that battle is already lost, the RfC passed 23 to 3. This is just implementing consensus. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

attempted-action
There appears to be an attempted-action parameter which isn't documented (I see it in use at MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No such parameter is or has been used by the template. Jackmcbarn requested it in template calls at and MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected. As far as I can tell, he made no request for code to actually use it. He has not edited since 2017. translatewiki:MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected/qqq says the corresponding MediaWiki parameter $3 is unused. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 February 2019
Replace "established registered users" with "autoconfirmed users", with a link to User access levels, as "autoconfirmed" is the proper term for that user group. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - linked to User_access_levels, but left other link. Part of the point of the existing link is to encourage users to sign up for accounts. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 February 2019 (2)
Create MediaWiki:Customjsprotected and MediaWiki:Customcssprotected with the content  and   respectively. The purpose of this edit request is to harmonize the error messages shown when trying to edit someone else's JS or CSS page with that when shown in all other "you can't edit this" error messages. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a few things went wrong here. . &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I went to see the source for someone else's script, I was told:
 * This User script is protected so that only RhinosF1 and Interface administrators can $2 it.
 * Could we remove the capital from User script, and fix the $2 to report the attempted action (edit)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in the process of coding up a change to fix that. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like we both made some mistakes in this edit request, and therefore I have to make a followup "cleanup" one. 1. You swapped the content of the two MediaWiki pages I requested: belongs on MediaWiki:Customjsprotected and   belongs on MediaWiki:Customjsprotected, not the other way around.
 * Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like we both made some mistakes in this edit request, and therefore I have to make a followup "cleanup" one. 1. You swapped the content of the two MediaWiki pages I requested: belongs on MediaWiki:Customjsprotected and   belongs on MediaWiki:Customjsprotected, not the other way around.

2. MediaWiki:Customjsprotected and MediaWiki:Customcssprotected don't take parameters in the way I expected, they should both be, not.

3. I made a few coding and formatting errors in Template:Protected page text/interface, and therefore the sandbox of that template needs to be synced to fix them.. It's unfortunately difficult to test changes involving system messages. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alerting you to this too. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just went to try and test it on the beta cluster, but its currently on read-only. I'll try again later --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reverted these messages to default. Ping me and reactivate the edit request when there is a good version ready to put in. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, and, I believe I've coded a fixed version. I also decided to go the extra mile and do it for user JSON pages. 1. Move User:Pppery/MediaWiki:customcssprotected, User:Pppery/MediaWiki:customjsprotected, and User:Pppery/MediaWiki:customjsonprotected into MediaWiki namespace (dropping the "User:Pppery" from the title) without leaving a redirect

2. Sync the sandbox of Template:Protected page text/interface.

3. Protect Template:Protected page text/user-json. It would also be good for someone more knowledgable as to why user JSON pages are protected to copy-edit some of the wording on that template, but that doesn't block this from going live. Thanks for fulfilling all of my (admittedly highly technical in nature) edit requests to MediaWiki namespace. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I expanded the user-json to try and explain why --DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Side note: I discovered T216899 and T216900, two bugs related to moving a page, during the process of testing this change. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC) MediaWiki:Customcssprotected and MediaWiki:Customjsprotected are currently calling the sandbox of Template:Protected page text/interface (Yes, I am aware that this is my fault). &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 13:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * do you have specific fixes (or I can just revert to the last setting while it is figured out)? — xaosflux  Talk 16:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove  from both MediaWiki:Customcssprotected and MediaWiki:Customjsprotected. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk)  16:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * oh! (I misread what you wanted done). This is fixed now. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

At least this protection-level slip-up lasted for only 1/21900 as long as the previous one I requested be fixed. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Copy all code from User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected and User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to the corresponding MediaWiki pages. This: I've done some testing of this using Special:ExpandTemplates and a module I wrote to simulate system messages, but of course it's not possible to text 100% of the code involved in a system message change when you aren't an admin on any Wikimedia wiki.
 * 1) Fixes the notice for cascade-protected pages that transclude themselves, such as Cascade-protected items/content. (yes, I am aware I could fix this by creating Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content, but it seems wiser to me to fix the bug at its source rather than work around it)
 * 2) Moves the content of MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected to Template:Protected page text/cascade for consistency reasons.
 * 3) Implements the fix for moves for cascade protection, where it seems to have been forgotten.  Feel like copyediting Template:Protected page text/cascade like you did for my previous reqeust?

Sorry for having to make so many edit requests to system messages. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who introduced the somewhat obscure bug that I'm fixing in point 1 and is the true motivation for this request. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the bug you found is that the message in this template should display on cascade-protected pages that transclude themselves, but it currently isn't. Do I have that right? Also, how about requesting adminship on the test wiki? If you ever need to test stuff that's developer-related then you should be able to get it without much fuss. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, or to be more precise self-transclusions should be entirely ignored when deciding which protection message to display. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m getting home in ~1 hour. I can proofread it and, if the database is no longer read only, text is out on the beta cluster (where I’m an admin). —DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've copied them all over if you want to take a look at the beta cluster --DannyS712 (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A test at a page on the beta cluster that transcludes itself shows that the correct error message does display. So,, I think this is ready to sync. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ should this cause any errors, any admin should revert ASAP. — xaosflux  Talk 02:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to work! &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2019 (2)
Another day (in my timezone, at least), another obscure protection-message bug to edit-request fix, this time involving site JS, CSS and JSON: This edit request: &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Move User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Protectedinterface, User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Sitecssprotected, and User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Sitejsprotected into MediaWiki namespace.
 * 2) Create MediaWIki:Sitejsonprotected with no content. (all users who can edit the MediaWiki namespace can also edit site JSON)
 * 3) (Template:Protected interface will need to be documented and protected)
 * 1) Removes the duplicate You do not have permission to edit this CSS page because it may affect all visitors. message shown when trying to edit site CSS/JS/JSON as a non-admin
 * 2) Fixes the error message shown when an admin who isn't an interface admin tries to edit site CSS/JS.
 * 3) Implements the fix for moves for protection of pages in the MediaWiki namspace (where it was missed)
 * 4) Fixes the content model detection to work when moving a page.
 * I don't see any issues --DannyS712 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MediaWIki:Sitejsonprotected appears to be legitimately used when encountering pages such as: MediaWiki:Sandbox/test.json. — xaosflux  Talk 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But Mediawiki:Protectedinterface will also occur in the same place. Don't you agree than that message is redundant to the big box immediately above it? &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

the beta cluster is no longer read-only. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm going to have time before tonight (utc) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, after all this request has sat idle for three days anyway. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to import Module:Page, which is causing a duplicate protection error message to show up. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the error is, but I copied module:page over (and module:CallAssert, which page calls) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed Module:Protect, which is called by Module:Page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for going through so many testing iterations here, but it looks like you copied the wrong content: MediaWiki:Protectedinterface should have the content of User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Protectedinterface, but you created it with content from User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Sitecssprotected or User:Pppery/MediaWiki:Sitejsprotected (you also forgot to create MediaWiki:Sitejsonprotected with no content, but that's easy to fix. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ x2 --DannyS712 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to work aside from a few more copying errors. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You created MediaWiki:MediaWiki:Sitejsprotected with a double namespace prefix. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * — xaosflux  Talk 20:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 March 2019
In Protected page text/user-json, please replace

with

This is because interface administrators can also edit user JSON pages (search for  in Special:ListGroupRights)

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. Per Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators/Archive_3, non-admins will not be allowed to request access to interface administrator at the this time., so this change is pointless wording bloat. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Customjsonprotected
(Pinging as the people who wrote this message) Is there a reason why MediaWiki:Customjsonprotected uses this template rather than its own custom text like MediaWiki:Customcssjsprotected? Especially as the JSON protection is not a protection that is applied by admins; thus parts of the text on MediaWiki:Customjsonprotected are wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Customcssjsprotected is a message that is no longer used by the software, so it provides nothing to compare to (the actual messages that appear when a non-iadmin attempts to edit someone else's user CSS/JS are MediaWiki:Customcssprotected and MediaWiki:Customjsprotected, both of which call Template:Protected page text/interface). As to why I chose to use Template:Protected page text, custom text like that appears to me to provide less information, including the lack of an edit request button, for no apparent benefit If you think something needs changing in the wording of Template:Protected page text/interface and Template:Protected page text/user-json, then feel free to change it. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 July 2019
I need the above footer header to be:  because all the other messages say that, too. Mr. Juicyfun (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ administrators are also autoconfirmed users, so it doesn't need to be called out. — xaosflux  Talk 02:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 August 2019
In the suggestions parameter, change the value "yes" to. Mr. Juicyfun (Obliterator time!) 04:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Is it agreed upon that the "What can I do?" text should not display on non-existent pages? (The effect of the edit request would be to hide that text when someone tried to edit a salted page) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I think so. Mr. Juicyfun  (Obliterator time!) 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ why would we make it harder for someone to make an ER on a salted page? This would need more discussion at least. — xaosflux  Talk 18:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2019
I think talking about move protection when the user is trying to edit the page is not useful, and it makes this message longer while it should be as concise as possible. Therefore, please replace:  For move-protected pages, see requested moves.  With:

This way, the item should display when attempting to move a page (e.g. ), but not when attempting to edit it (e.g. ). Matma Rex talk 11:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For intended use on which page(s)? --Izno (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean – the template is used in interface messages when a page is protected (check out the two links I gave above while logged out). Matma Rex talk 17:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that after--I think the specific interface pages for this parameter would be good to document. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The parameter is already in use, on every interface message using this template that I checked. Sorry, I can’t easily make a list now. Matma Rex talk 13:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I... don't see that? The parameter you're suggesting to add is entirely new so far as I can tell. Am I reading you wrong? --Izno (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's called indirectly via subtemplates [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=insource%3A%2Fattempted-action%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns8=1&ns10=1] which can get the value from MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction. But I oppose the suggestion. The move link disappears when you cannot move the page so users may try "View source" instead to get info. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ as to the immediate edit request, discussion can certainly continue below - once a consensus emerges, feel free to reactivate the request. — xaosflux  Talk 13:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2020
In the line for new editors, please replace Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia. (and old page which now redirects to WP:Questions) with Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia. This will send them to a more appropriate introductory page. Sdkb (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 May 2020
Please change  to   Thank you. The secret weapon for the account Denimbabel 23:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this change? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just template editors can edit the templates and change their name. The secret weapon for the account Denimbabel 19:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also do not understand the purpose of this &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disabled for now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2020
Please make [ these changes]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * why would we need to invoke the u template here as opposed to say just using a wikilink? — xaosflux  Talk 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The pipe trick expands in the source code during the pre-save transform instead of during rendering, so we can't just do . That gives us 3 choices:
 * Use u like I did in the sandbox
 * Don't use a pipe at all, and accept that the message will say "only User:Example and interface administrators" instead of "only Example and interface administrators"
 * Duplicate the username detection logic manually on the other side of the pipe, which results in this kind of redundant messiness:
 * If you don't like option 1, my next preference would be for option 2 instead. By the way, why don't you want to use u here? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * because then we should raise protection on it from TP to FP, as it will be part of the interface - and I'd rather avoid extra protections if not necessary. — xaosflux  Talk 00:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a requirement somewhere that every template used in an interface message needs to be fully protected rather than just template-protected? I don't see that at WP:FULL. But in any case, are you okay with option 2 instead then? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as MediaWiki is FP, transclusions get it to avoid weaking the namespace protection. So right now this outputs something along the lines of This user script is protected so that only Jackmcbarn and interface administrators can edit it., and it says it when you are already on a subpage, with subpage navigation to the userpage - are you finding it confusing with out the text "User:" also being displayed? —  xaosflux  Talk 00:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My preference was actually to not display the "User:" prefix, hence why I went with option 1 and not 2 from the beginning. I just want the user's name to be a wikilink. But I'm fine with option 2 if it avoids fully protecting another template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:User is already used in the MediaWiki namespace, so this argument does not apply. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note, it is not automatic, I've upped that one. — xaosflux  Talk 00:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, reverted that, just got rid of its needless use on that message. — xaosflux  Talk 01:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So for your option 2, what do you want to change this to:
 * — xaosflux  Talk 10:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * [ This]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 August 2020
In, please remove the excess space before   within the source code.--Hildeoc (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 November 2020
Please change therefore only administrators can edit it to so only administrators can edit to to fix the comma splice. Thanks! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § The edit requests time sink
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § The edit requests time sink. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2021
Please add in Protected page text/extendedconfirmed the following:

"If you have a user account, log in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after 30 days and 500 edits, you will be able to edit pages with extended confirmed protection."

Thanks. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions  16:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's already a link to WP:Extended confirmed; what are you hoping to improve by adding the above language? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I need that please include this to help to non extended confirmed users to how will can get the extended confirmed right. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions  21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ please mock up your change in the sandbox, test it, then reactivate the edit request when ready.  this sounds useful and would give the same sort of response for SPP as ECP for logged out users. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 June 2021
Replace  with   in Protected page text/template for cleanliness in the wikitext, and to not link to a redirect. Before: template editors. After: template editors. SWinxy (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good fix, as full-protected interface pages shouldn't use redirects. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * in any event, the redirect has been bypassed (I skipped link magix). — xaosflux  Talk 18:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)