Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Can we write Template:uw-vandalism1 in a more formal tone?

In the user warning vandalism series of user message templates, I noticed that Template:uw-vandalism1 uses contractions and ends with "Thanks", but the rest of the user warning vandalism series templates do not. I propose we could rewrite Template:uw-vandalism1 as follows, using User:Example in this instance.

Hello, I am Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thank you.

Please let me know if this rewriting would work and if people could take users who post these messages more seriously. A more formal tone could convey seriousness. I think people would be more likely to heed the notice. Z. Patterson (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: Have you looked at the other level 1 templates, such as Template:Uw-unsourced1? Most (if not all) end in either "Thanks" or "Thank you", because they assume good faith. If it's clear that the user has begun with a bad faith edit, you don't need to begin the chain with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, you can go straight to {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} - or higher, if necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: unblock|reason=Your reason here

We use this same language in many block templates. I'm sure somebody has pointed out that the net result of this is very frequent unblock requests that follow the instructions we give the user quite literally; they add exactly that text to the bottom of the talk page. Though sometimes it's just the blocked miscreant being obtuse, as often as not, when asked to actually give a reason, they give a reason. Why are we wasting our time and theirs with this? It sets us up to be chastising the user for following our instructions literally. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we really wasting our time? The key part before even asking the user to use the unlock template is they understand why they were blocked. We have the same set of instructions for any other template like XfC and XfD regardless of user experience. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete 175.157.61.175 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Or you may simply create a new account for editing

The last sentence ends with, "or you may simply create a new account for editing". This almost sounds like a solicitation of WP:SOCKING, something the new user is almost surely unaware of as something to be avoided. Rather, it would be better if this sentence said this instead:

• ...or you may simply abandon this username, and [[WP:REGISTER|create a new account]] for editing.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of what? DonIago (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's {{subst:uw-username}} Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We should change LLM misuse level 4 in the table in Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates

Right now, it indicates that the warning template should be {{subst:uw-generic4<nowiki>}} but we already have uw-ai4 for that purpose - should the table be edited? Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I did it myself - if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and we'll discuss. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we write Template:uw-vandalism1 to encourage the reader to put their energy into good use?

I propose adding "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, please be bold and improve it! If it makes the encyclopedia better, it is less likely to be undone." after the reminder on the unconstructive edit. The reason is that vandals often want to leave their mark, we are aiming to provide them the good path to do so. This is in the spirit of a current RfC to rewrite a friendlier version of WP:BITE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Kho, see {{uw-subtle1}}. I would think if we are going to make any changes to a vandalism template, it would be to that one, and not to {{uw-vandalism1}}. Another way to be friendlier, is if you believe that the user in question is trying to get it right but failing (as opposed to a malicious user or troll), then leave them a Welcome message on their Talk page, which will mitigate the BITEY-ness of the vandalism template, as well as provide them a bunch of links to helpful pages that will show them the path forward. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I am actually picturing a pure vandal here. I am not endeavoring to teach them about Wikipedia, or to be civil at them.

However, WP:VANDAL shows that most vandalism are juvenile vandalism. They are here to have fun, they mean no harm.

I pray they who initially thought "let's screw around", could be persuaded that being reverted sucks, while making bold good-faith improvements would turn out good for them. Hence, my proposed two-sentence addition.

Remember, a lot of these juvenile vandals represent a large part of our loyal readership who "tend to be pretty smart people" and they bring in fresh perspectives to Wikipedia when they choose to contribute in good-faith. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)