Template talk:AfD-notice-NPF

Greeting
Hi, I'm a bit concerned that the greeting in the first line could be considered patronizing to more experienced editors:

While this message is an appropriate way to introduce oneself to a new editor, it might strike the wrong tone for anyone else, especially since the next paragraph tells the recipient that their article is nominated for deletion. Is there a way to rephrase this to accommodate all editors regardless of experience? —  Newslinger  talk   07:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , will be replying shortly:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , as to the addition of the particular line; see this pdf and the associated finding(s) at Meta. But, I absolutely agree with you that this line (along with the last line; to an extent) might be patronizing for experienced editors.
 * If there were some variable for parser functions which returned the edit-count (or even checking the user-groups of the user whose t/p was being slapped with the template); I would have solved the issue, easily. But, regrettably there's none.
 * I am thinking of some alternatives about verifying whether someone is in a group (Ext.Conf. or not) and your ideas (both technical and non-technical) are welcome:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 13:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WBG! I've read through the slides. The presentation looks very interesting, and it's great to see actions being taken from those findings. As for the template, it would be ideal to have some way to determine the edit count or user groups of the recipient, but I think this has to be implemented through the Page Curation tool since I don't see a technical solution with the currently available magic words. It looks like the developers are accepting feature requests, but they already have plenty of higher-priority tasks on their plate.
 * Would it be okay to use a small message in the end like the one in Template:Reviewednote-NPF, reproduced below?
 * This would make the message less personal, but it would clarify to recipients that the article reviewer is not trying to be condescending. —  Newslinger  talk   08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , absolutely and feel free to implement the code:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 05:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This would make the message less personal, but it would clarify to recipients that the article reviewer is not trying to be condescending. —  Newslinger  talk   08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , absolutely and feel free to implement the code:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 05:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)