I have serious doubts about what this essay proposes.
I think that it is unreasonable for someone to get upset because they receive a template message, merely because it is a template message. I think that that is disproportionate. I do appreciate that there are some people who are genuinely hypersensitive but ... James500 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a random opinion from me: I wonder if it's rude to template, period. I have done it some, myself. But it is not clear to me that it's a very human and welcoming thing to do. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that templating regulars is less rude than templating newbies. I mean, we all know what is going on, we often communicate through shorthand acronyms. Templates designed for old timers could be concise. But for newbies, it's probably better to say hello and explain something in a human way!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: Hello. First of all I take the opportunity to thank you for this marvelous invention called WP, although my long hours in front of the computer screen make my wife suspect I have an on-line love affair... :-) As a "newbie" I agree totally with your comment. As newcomers here we are more often than frequently welcomed by the experienced users attacking us with lots of acronyms telling us what we should or should not do in every imaginable situation and now I learn that there is also a principle about not templating the regulars! So while we newbies are trying to learn and fit in are subject to be scared -and at times scolded- by the oldies while they are immune to be templated; nice life... --E4024 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
P.D. I took the liberty to correct a typo in another user's talk; let me see who will throw the first template on this sinner. --E4024 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
My complaint, based on my Wikipedia experience is:
Some users are quick to template other users whose edits they simply disagree with or have reverted.
Some users think any no IP account could be a regular (not true!).
Some users who place a template on another user's Talk Page are equally guilty of the behavior they accuse others of (e.g., accusing another editor of "disruptive edits" when both parties are involved in an edit war)
It is insulting for a template, especially when given by someone who is party to a conflict of opinion, to threaten another user with an immediate block/ban.
Only Admins should be able to place templates threatening blocks/bans and they should be given for a consistent pattern of behavior, not just a difference of opinion regarding ONE edit.
I have come across a similar experience, in some of the pages I'm editing several users have banded together (and even admitted to talking to each other outside of Wikipedia regularly) and implement their views on certain subjects, and would even insult users on a regular basis but they were somehow exempt from the rules because they are the only "regular" editors. And they even have "a cheat" to get around the 3 revert rule, they band together. Imagine you make an edit and they keep reverting it and while you only have 1 account to revert it with they simply let someone else do it after one of their clique has already reverted it twice and then insult the user and send them a template stating that they will be blocked from editing/banned if they would continue.
This regards this recent addition by Rich Farmbrough. My understanding is that speedy deletion is meant not to be caught up in discussions with page creators, as there is pre-established consensus for such deletions and the pages in question should be removed from the encyclopedia as soon as possible. Special consideration for pages that may be further improved is already discussed at WP:CSD. As for proposed deletions and AfD, I think it is good practice to have a preliminary discussion on the article talk page before opening the formal process. That said, the templates involved are in a different class from warning templates: they are not an impersonal, bureaucratic slap on the wrist, but a courtesy to the page creator, to ensure they have some warning beyond the template on the article and the subsequent notification from their watchlist. Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. However there are a huge number of speedy deletions, and, dare I say it, they often have been not the clear cut cases that should be speedied. For example "A page is only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its revisions are also eligible." I wonder how many people check that? Moreover it is as easy to say "Can I speedy this page?" as to template the page and the user. Certainly if an established (and active) user has created the page its a worthwhile step. Notifying the creator and major contributors for a speedy is a "should". There's a reason for this: there may be aspects of the page that they would be aware of, or content that can be reused in another context. going the "speedy first, ask questions after" route makes this moot.
Please feel free to improve the wording on the section to reflect that in this case templates are a good thing, once the process is commenced.