User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award

{| style="border: 1px solid ; background-color: #99ddEE; Margin:2em; padding:2em; color:blue; float:center; width:90%; " !colspan="1" valign="middle" | !colspan="2" style="font-size:large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 0.8em;"|Please consider yourself spanked with a wet noodle
 * colspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid red;font-size: small; color:black" <include| I have found an action by you careless, discourteous, and/or disrespectful of other editors time when placing the  template in [  THIS EDIT ] 2Please learn the importance of leaving an adequate timesaving documentation trail for others to track your actions as an editor. Your failure to do so as evidenced in the edit link above will and has needlessly cost other editors ( like it did me ) some of our precious and limited discretionary time due to your neglegence and speaking for the rest of us, I resent it. I had to dig to figure out what the heck happened, by whom, or when due to your lack of diligence in leaving a good and sufficient record for a quick check in the edit summaries, or an dated announcement explaination and rationale on the talk pages OR (worse) BOTH, when you applied the controversial template . Consequently that failure becomes a blatant discourtesy to your fellow editors and disrespects our time. It is better to nothing than to do only the first and easiest ten-percent of a job&mdash;most of the work is and should be in leaving a clear rationale and record of why you made such a judgement in a seperate notification section on the talk page with a signed time-stamped edit. I'm sure you didn't mean to be discourteous, or I strongly hope, so please think of your impact on other's when making important changes such as this incident.0Any time you place any such 'In Your Face' template on an article, as a courtesy to others, please give a clear edit summary of the event and thourough explaination in a notice section on the talk, where the title line includes the date. It is after all, a bold, and some would say, aggressive act to add such administrative notice templates without prior discussion, and while your judgement may be sound, you owe the rest of us a note about your reasoning, and most importantly, we all need to have a clear way to find out when such were applied, and who is responsible for policing them, to see if they can be cleared. Yes, you should be checking such since you're the one who applied the template which reflects badly on the project at large. Many of us hold you directly responsible for monitoring said page, and expect you to understand when applying these you take on an implicit responsibility to clear such self-references at the earliest possible moment when the article has been improved to overcome your problems statement in the talk notice.5Just +  is good enough for clean, merge, expert, and such tagging in edit summaries , but you always need to document all reasoning on the talk page too! Always! A) Please note that such In your face tagging templates is a wikipedia self reference which detracts from our credibility with the customer-readers and public at large, and should be used very judiciously. Since in placing such a deliterious tag you are making a broad judgment which reflects on the whole project, perhaps badly, the onus is on you to make plain to the rest of us why you made such a controversial judgement, and most importantly when and who applied the tag so blatantly disrupting a page's presentation. B) You also take on an implicit duty to patrol the page so tagged periodically, and remove such when the evolving article meets adequate or average standards, or your concerns have been fixed up. Please clear such tags as soon as you feel they can be done without, or have been hung to garner comment on  and  proposals for no more than 90 days, 30-60 is probably enough, certainly if you post a notice on the Village pump or generate an WP:RFC. C) When possible, place such low in an article (references area is good) or better yet, on the talk page. Tis is the prefered method for  and some other banners which do not need to act as a warning to other editors (Most of us can see the lack of references too! Please also keep WP:POINT in mind.)0# Most importantly, MAKE A TALK PAGE annotation in a NEW SECTION using    as part of the title line, preferably with a date such as for example:
 * colspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid red;font-size: small; color:black" <include| I have found an action by you careless, discourteous, and/or disrespectful of other editors time when placing the  template in [  THIS EDIT ] 2Please learn the importance of leaving an adequate timesaving documentation trail for others to track your actions as an editor. Your failure to do so as evidenced in the edit link above will and has needlessly cost other editors ( like it did me ) some of our precious and limited discretionary time due to your neglegence and speaking for the rest of us, I resent it. I had to dig to figure out what the heck happened, by whom, or when due to your lack of diligence in leaving a good and sufficient record for a quick check in the edit summaries, or an dated announcement explaination and rationale on the talk pages OR (worse) BOTH, when you applied the controversial template . Consequently that failure becomes a blatant discourtesy to your fellow editors and disrespects our time. It is better to nothing than to do only the first and easiest ten-percent of a job&mdash;most of the work is and should be in leaving a clear rationale and record of why you made such a judgement in a seperate notification section on the talk page with a signed time-stamped edit. I'm sure you didn't mean to be discourteous, or I strongly hope, so please think of your impact on other's when making important changes such as this incident.0Any time you place any such 'In Your Face' template on an article, as a courtesy to others, please give a clear edit summary of the event and thourough explaination in a notice section on the talk, where the title line includes the date. It is after all, a bold, and some would say, aggressive act to add such administrative notice templates without prior discussion, and while your judgement may be sound, you owe the rest of us a note about your reasoning, and most importantly, we all need to have a clear way to find out when such were applied, and who is responsible for policing them, to see if they can be cleared. Yes, you should be checking such since you're the one who applied the template which reflects badly on the project at large. Many of us hold you directly responsible for monitoring said page, and expect you to understand when applying these you take on an implicit responsibility to clear such self-references at the earliest possible moment when the article has been improved to overcome your problems statement in the talk notice.5Just +  is good enough for clean, merge, expert, and such tagging in edit summaries , but you always need to document all reasoning on the talk page too! Always! A) Please note that such In your face tagging templates is a wikipedia self reference which detracts from our credibility with the customer-readers and public at large, and should be used very judiciously. Since in placing such a deliterious tag you are making a broad judgment which reflects on the whole project, perhaps badly, the onus is on you to make plain to the rest of us why you made such a controversial judgement, and most importantly when and who applied the tag so blatantly disrupting a page's presentation. B) You also take on an implicit duty to patrol the page so tagged periodically, and remove such when the evolving article meets adequate or average standards, or your concerns have been fixed up. Please clear such tags as soon as you feel they can be done without, or have been hung to garner comment on  and  proposals for no more than 90 days, 30-60 is probably enough, certainly if you post a notice on the Village pump or generate an WP:RFC. C) When possible, place such low in an article (references area is good) or better yet, on the talk page. Tis is the prefered method for  and some other banners which do not need to act as a warning to other editors (Most of us can see the lack of references too! Please also keep WP:POINT in mind.)0# Most importantly, MAKE A TALK PAGE annotation in a NEW SECTION using    as part of the title line, preferably with a date such as for example:

, Reasons for tagging
Taking such care and courtesy will be greatly appreciated by all the rest of us. There are many more of us that will see such tagging and need to spend time for you to act carelessly so as to ignore effects on our time.
 * 1) Badly organized# Some material repeated when not particularly helpful to clarity. # Sentences are not up to encyclopediac standards. # In general, needs an overhaul.... or whatever shortcomings you discern. When clarified so, others can do the heavy lifting and pitch in to help.

Sincerely,
 * }

History
This award was introduced in December 2006 by User:fabartus who always seems to find very stale, Merge pages, Move pages, Clean, Copy edit, and such other tagging without a good clear administrative record of when and by whom such have been added. So it is hoped this chiding will be taken to heart by those editing too fast and too superficially for the rest of us coming along later, especially much later. Since many if not most of these 'In your face' (Ugly!) tags overtly imply that the editor applying same should provide a rationale for doing so, this 'reminder', will hopefully improve much going forward, as those added arguments in such tags have not been effective for combating this time wasting problem by themselves. (In the case of some merges, moves, and cleans more than a year after and dozens or hundreds of edits to poke through and no talk rationale! Grrrrr!

Purpose and Usage
This 'Award' is to be applied on a user talk page only and is part of a family of critique templates meant to gently chide an editor for not taking proper care for our collective time, to get with the program in clearly documenting their actions, and make the point that when they do not, they are costing other editors time. It is to be hoped that such a notice might result in overall better documentation trails for all of us to use. One of these might be used when an editor is unclear, incomplete, or cryptic instead of leaving a clear edit summary, especially when the action was to apply most any of the self-referential semi-controversial administrative (and self-debasing) 'In-your-face' banner-type Notice templates (Clean, copyedit, Mergeto, etc.) on articles which manifest all too boldly in the top of an article in ways useless to the lay customer-reader. It's use is especially encouraged with the failure to adequately annote when and why the template was applied with a signed rationale on the article talk page. Especially on those templates which clearly imply such a note is part of the process of applying such. (Example:, , etc.)   In particular, this one might be awarded for not leaving a clear rationale, or notice on the talk page as a dated section title including the template name applied before a set of point organized rationale and reasons for the bold edit. In general use this version when the editor does not leave a quick easy means to track who place such templates on the article when, and what their reasons were for doing so. Some judicious use of this 'wet diaper' type of award by this society will hopefully improve overall edit summaries and documentation so as to maximize the time the rest of us can spend getting work done, rather than wasting time searching out who did what and why types of fact chasing. Fra nkB 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) -- In the spirit of Don't bite the newcomers, if someone has accrued one or two of these 'Strong-In-Your-Face' notices about past actions on their talk page, cut them some slack and just leave the link without the template so they can police their responsibility and clear the template. Use of a question like: "Do you think the Merge tag you placed on URL can be cleared yet? The talk discussion is stale, and no consensus was reached." (In sum, courteous reminders will do after a few slaps to the face with the noodle save for real uncaring hardcases!)
 * Caution
 * Usage:, apply to user talk of editor failing to document actions clearly. The URL is a full URL, not a Wikilink, and a wikilink will not work (no pipe in the resultant command string construction.)
 * Arg-1 -- Give the template name applied by the transgressor which needed to be tracked down.
 * Arg-2 -- Full URL Link to Instance, such as a diff page in the history. (easy, presumes navigating from such a page when researching when, where, and why. Just cut the url into the edit buffer, and go the the user talk page.
 * Note: The template will automatically assume no additional comments on your message and concludes you will complete the line with your signature. If you want to add comments to the boilerplate text, use, and include your thoughts as the third arguement.

Related
(Note, this could be implimented as two templates using parser functions, but I figure not using an If statement will minimize server loading some small amount since user talk pages may be viewed by many on many days to come. Hence flavors, vice elegant logic was chosen in the design.)
 * 1) Wet noodle award1 -- Same appearance, but allows amplified comments above the salutaion and signature. See also difference with.
 * 2) Wet noodle award2 -- Gives a condensed message for when edit summary was good, but the talk page was missing the reasoning and notification section.
 * 3) Wet noodle award3 -- Appearance is same as '2', but '3', like '1' allows a third Argument for additional gripes or comments (perhaps a compliment as well as the mild slap to face?!!)

Example appearance
Clean | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wet_noodle_award
 * subst'd