Template talk:Uw-delete1

Only for newer users?

A lot of the text on this template would only be appropriate for newer users. If this was given to established editors that made an honest mistake, it would be insulting to tell them to read the welcome page and use the sandbox for test edits. Just my 2 cents. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why all of the level 1 templates have been written as AGF warnings, and to inform editors that the edit they have just done is wrong. For an established editor who should know better than remove large tracts of text without providing an edit summary one would normally start with a level 2 warning. The language of level 2 is usually faith neutral tending towards reproach so that if a mistake has been made we are still not throwing around blatant accusations. cheers ^Khukri 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice is OK, but....

Don't get me wrong, I *like* the passive voice. When used correctly, it's a wonderful thing. However, the current Uw-delete1 template says (in part):

Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary.

That last clause can be read two ways:

1. You should provide the edit summary. Or,
2. The edit summary field should be filled in automatically by the server; you should see text there when you edit.

Inexperienced users won't know which way to interpret it.
May I recommend instead:

Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without typing a good reason in the edit summary field.

It's a more emphatic way of reminding the user of his or her responsibility. -- JEBrown87544 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs at all. You could do the same aim by a smaller change .....Wikipedia without a good reason, which you should specify.... But it's splitting hairs, on you go. ^Khukri 07:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very offensive

I am a victim of this template. It is very offensive to get a standardised warning from a thoughtless editor who did not take the trouble to review whether the edit was good or bad for Wikipedia, or to read the associated talk page. I am thinking of quitting as a result of this brutal treatment. I do not think you should allow editors to use templates like this as a shortcut way of making unfair allegations. Varsdra 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you removed content from an article accidentally, the template should not offend you. If you removed it intentionally, then either you should have stated a reason, or been warned with a stronger content blanking/vandalism template. It takes a bit of a thick skin to edit here, since your edits will always be under the scrutiny of others. As far as "brutal treatment", c'mon. If you consider a vanilla warning like this one brutal, I fear for you. -- Elaich 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about as mild as warnings get. It's practically British. Natalie 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)