Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars/Archive 2

The question is not "should it be", The correct question is "is it"?
The question asked by Until 1==2 above does not convince me at all, as it just asks "should this be a guideline". Frankly, that question is irrelevant.

The only question worth asking is if this is actually applied on the wiki. Well, it is. If you template regulars too often, you get blocked, it's that simple. No questions asked.

In short, this is a guideline or policy, however you want to put it. If you've seen people get away with templating regulars more than 3 times in 24 hours, please tell me about it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you template regulars too often, you get blocked, it's that simple. No questions asked. Since when? I'm all for the advice this page has, but I've never seen someone get blocked for using template messages. Rather, they get blocked for harassing another editor, which happens regardless of how the message is generated. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kim, we determine these things by consensus, not your interpretation. I assume you are talking about 3RR. The fact that templating a regular is not an exemption from 3RR proves nothing. We don't block people for giving appropriate templates to users who are "regulars", do you have any links to such blocks? If you do I suspect the real reason for the block was disruption, sock puppetry, or 3RR. undefinedUntil  00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Until(1 == 2), and have to add that "talk page vote not convincing :-P" is one of the oddest reasons I have seen yet on Wikipedia for totally ignoring consensus, especially when that consensus was virtually unanimous (Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars) about this being an essay.  Likewise elevating WP:TEMPLAR to supplement status strikes me as being rather superfluous as editors are actually blocked for 3RR violations on the talk pages of others, regardless of if the text in dispute was a template or custom made.  As noted in WP:USER, editors -both registered and anonymous- may remove messages at will from their own talk pages … who cares if that text was a template or hand-crafted?  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On procedures:

You can "elevate" things? HUH? Even if I can make sense of that... "elevate from essay to... essay giving supplemental information about foo"? WTF? No, that still doesn't make sense... Alright, I give up, what on earth are you talking about?

On your 2nd procedural point I think there's also consensus that the sky should be blue, but I'm not sure what that has to do with describing best practices on wikipedia.

I think we're living in different universes here or something. Let's move right along.

On the actual subject at hand:

Yes, people may remove whatever text from their own talk pages. That definitely has consensus, and if you edit war over it, the person with the user page always wins. :-) That also has general (if not unanimous) consensus, I believe?

Let's cut to the chase: Are we in agreement and do we have consensus on the actual subject at hand, yes or no? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't have to understand Kim. It is enough that everyone else understands. All we ask is that you don't edit the page contrary to consensus. The fact that people are allowed to remove stuff from their talk page does not prevent the use of templates towards that user. Once again your conclusion does not follow from its premises. undefinedUntil  14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a note on Kim's talk page about editing and consensus, but Kim does not seem to believe me. undefinedUntil  14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't recall drawing any conclusions yet.


 * But we do agree that it's a fact that people may remove things from their talk page, and that edit warring with them about it is bad. That's good.


 * Do others also agree with that much?


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't remember drawing a conclusion? Okay, here is a reminder. it looks like you both came to a conclusion then acted on it. undefinedUntil  14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that was before people objected in the first place. I am now gathering information to base a new conclusion on, so that I may correctly act within consensus. Alright? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems you are trying to change the question because you don't like the answer. The thread title says it all. undefinedUntil  15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to read my mind. You're not very good at it :-P. Concentrate on what I'm actually saying or asking.


 * Getting back on track: @Kralizec, Ned Scott: Do you agree that it's a fact that people may remove things from their talk page, and that edit warring with them about it is bad? If so case, directly linking to the relevant policies using the supplemental essay tag would probably be all we need to do, I figure.


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreement is superfluous; the WP:USER guideline clearly states that "policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages." What more needs to be said?  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right! :-) So this page basically describes the consequences where several other policies and guidelines come together. On the one hand, people shouldn't be ignoring this page without thinking (because they'll get into trouble), but on the other hand marking every single derivative page guideline isn't all that either (see even the badly conducted poll above for comments on that, IIRC).


 * There are several pages in the same boat. Is there a clear way to set them apart that you can think of? (supplement goes some of the way, but apparently people misread that too ...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kim, the page makes it clear that its message is that you should not template the regulars. This is not a rule, and there are no consequences for doing this other than perhaps annoying someone who thinks they are above being templated. You keep saying people who template the regulars get in trouble, I don't think that is true. Can you demonstrate when this has happened? If it has happened then it was wrong because the community decided that this is not a rule. undefinedUntil  17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We already passed that point and reached agreement, didn't we? Didn't you admit that people could get into trouble for edit warring if they persisted in templating a particular editor, or did we miss a step? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you persist in any edit then you get in trouble for edit warring. It means nothing to this debate. You do not get in trouble for templating a regular, it is neither policy nor practice. undefinedUntil  18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, think the consequences through. For example, the whole uw-vandalism1 uw-vandalism2 uw-vandalism3 uw-vandalism4  goes to basically 4 reversions right there (on a 3 per day limit). --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not follow. Perhaps somebody other than me will get your point, lets wait and see. undefinedUntil  19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What does not follow from what? Does templating 4 times not get you blocked? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. I have templated regulars at least 5 times, and never have been blocked. If you mean reverting the removal of your template 4 times in 24 hours I will answer that by saying that reverting any edit 4 times in 24 hours will get you blocked. That fact that reverting something 4 times in 24 hours gets you blocked does not make one wit of difference to the validity of this essay. That, is why it does not follow.


 * Now, once again, I would love to wait a see what other people think of your theories before I dispute them further, perhaps I can't make sense of your logic because I lack clarity. Waiting and seeing what others think will be a good check on that. undefinedUntil  19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no 3RR on reverting in your own userspace. Interesting that you got away with templating 5 times once. I guess simply no-one reported you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant about 5 times total. Geez. undefinedUntil  23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Until(1 == 2) said "perhaps somebody other than me will get your point." My reply: do not look at me, as I have absolutely no clue what Kim is talking about.  Kim, can you give us an example -either made up, or preferably a real-life example with diffs- of someone templating a regular and getting blocked for it?  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It'd be amazing if you got my point, I haven't made it yet I don't think. Until 1==2 has been going off on assumed wild tangents, so I've basically been working on staying focussed.


 * Examples? I've got to have real world examples in my history somewhere, but I make a lot of edits. And it could be that we've managed to convince people to stop short of actually getting blocked IRL :-). I'll use some examples derived from what I remember then.


 * Imagine someone feels that a regular has been making odd edits, and decides to use one of those fine escalating warning template sets (like uw-vandalism1 through 4).


 * And say that that someone has the (common) misconception that it's ok to revertwar over warning templates in userspace...


 * That might get the templater blocked fairly quickly as they accumulate reverts at an amazing rate. I'm sure I've seen this scenario happen a couple of times, though typically I would've intervened, so I'm not sure it ever went on to the bitter end.


 * If a regular actually points out DTTR and starts reverting those same uw-vandalism templates off of their user talk page as they come in, you can easily argue at AN3RR that the templater is in violation of WP:3RR, since their edits only vary by one character each time :-P


 * Once again, it would be fairly easy to get the templater blocked. This is the scenario that I typically tell people about, to get them to be careful about indiscriminate templating.


 * Does that make sense so far?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, sanity check 30% complete. undefinedUntil  23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 100%... you've been going off on wild tangents all day. There wasn't a final point yet. Does that help? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The essay does not say anything about not edit warring with templates. It says "Don't template the regulars". What is more, people will get blocked if they keet putting the template on the page of someone who was not a regular, and they would get blocked if it was a carefully custom written note that they kept reverting back. Was that your point or have you yet to make it? It is hard to tell. undefinedUntil  00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it seemed like Kim was just being bold with the tag, and was willing to go to discussion when others disagreed. I'm kind of confused about the above exchange.. Am I being oblivious to something? -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I would not call making an edit one knows to be against consensus "bold", more "stubborn". But regardless I am willing to discuss the matter, as long as I can make sense of the arguments. Or if I can't, then other people have to. undefinedUntil  14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get things bolted down. Briefly, you can indirectly get into trouble by templating regulars, but there's no direct way to get into trouble, apparently (aka, you can get told off or even blocked based on one of several other policies, but there's no unique DTTR reason to get told off).


 * Because of that, the rules-lawering thing to do is to say that naturally DTTR is not a guideline or policy ;-)


 * But still, you can get into trouble indirectly if you violate DTTR, so I'm trying to figure a compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By your logic you can get in trouble by making spelling corrections or rewording paragraphs. You are basically saying if you template the regulars in a manner that is disruptive or violates 3RR you will get in trouble. If you do anything in a manner that is disruptive or violates 3RR you get in trouble, that does not mean the underlying action was forbidden in any way. undefinedUntil  14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone be templated?
Newbies can be insulted/dismayed by templates just as much as regulars. Obviously, they're not going to write essays about it, but basic politeness suggests that personal notes are generally the best policy. john k (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Templates are good for responding to newbie experiments. The welcome template is very useful.  The various templates advising against bad behaviour make the job much less onerous for those trying to maintain the peace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether personal notes are the best policy, they take many multiples longer time to write when you know the template you want to use, and deliver the same bottom-line message. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with 'John Kenney' here, newbies can also be just as dismayed by templates. As newbies don't realise it's a template, but think it's some sort of automatic robot, quite inhuman and normally inappropriate. SunCreator (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template?
Do we have a template made up for this yet? xenocidic (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IRONY undefinedUntil  20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since October 2007 ;-) Fram (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My mind boggles at the irony. --Kralizec! (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the only time I (or hopefully anyone) used it was months later on a WP:AN/I discussion. To put this on a newbie page would be rather elitist Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Templating of regulars should be reverted on sight. Good idea? Bad idea? Discuss.
See here. Mike R (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I wholeheartedly agree that "regulars" always respond better to a personalized message rather than a template, updating DTTR to suggest reverting on sight sounds like an invitation for disaster. Especially since DTTR is, you know, just an essay.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking whether it's a good idea to update this essay. I'm asking whether it's a good idea to remove a templated message from another user's talkpage for the sole* reason of DTTR. Mike R (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * *though cited as such, DTTR might not be the sole reason for removal in the example I linked.


 * When editors subst templates, they take full responsibility for the words thus generated. That's the way it should be done, and those words, added by that editor through substing a template, should be treated with respect by other editors just as if they were hand-crafted. (sdsds - talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Respect or dis-respect, as may be appropriate? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting templates made to regulars is a terrible idea. For one thing there is no consensus that it is against any sort of rule or even a bad idea, it is just the opinion of some editors. Secondly it is up to the person receiving the messages to decide if it should be removed. Chillum  15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What's a "Regular?"
The argument for this policy would be more persuasive to me if it clearly defined the meaning of "regular" and if a "regular" were easily identifiable. --Danorton 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regular is anyone who can get a group of likeminded others to throw this "essay" in your face as the reason the established users can get away with anything and unestablished editors can only get hit in the head with policy and essays. This essay is 100% counter to Wikipedia's grandly stated "anyone can edit," and anyone quoting it should be ashamed to do so.  --Blechnic (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Template messages are an easy way to quickly pass on some standardized bit of information. However "regulars" on Wikipedia generally do not like standardized messages, but rather prefer personalized messages.  "Regular" means different things to different people (50 edits? 500 edits?  two weeks time?  two months time?), but the gist of this essay is pretty much the same as the old adage "you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar."  --Kralizec! (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, so, it's vinegar when used with regulars, but using vinegar with non-regulars is fine? Only regulars get honey?  Ye old stratified society again?  If it works for regulars, it works for all editors.  --Blechnic (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but why bother making a personalized message for an IP or newly registered editor who's first edit is to add "teh" to an article when uw-test1 will do the same job in 1/10th the time? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) There is a difference between regulars and new editors - we expect regular editors to have gained some familiarity with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, while that assumption is not true for new editors. Most of the basic templates are designed to be friendly and welcoming and to guide new editors to relevant policies.  If they ignore the friendly message and act in a way that is disruptive to Wikipedia, then the messages become firmer.  The point of this essay, to me, is that it's pointless and often counterproductive to send templates designed for new users to established users.  There are other types of templates that are designed for any user (deletion discussion notifications, image notifications etc), and those are out of the purview of this essay.  The essay could be called WP:Trytousetemplatesonlyforthepurpose(s)forwhichtheyweredesigned, but that's a little wordy.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is precisely the attitude of people who quote this essay: "why bother treating a newly registered editor" like a human being, but when it comes to established editors, nothing's too delicate to be considered for their comfort. Why bother wasting time on newly registered editors? It's not like Wikipedia is actively recruiting or needs new editors, after all. Why treat them like human beings, when one can treat them like dirt? Something along those lines? But, oh, lordy, don't even consider less than floral nosegays for the regulars if they cross some line a newly registered user might not even know about. I think I'll stick with treating newly registered users who might not know what's what as if their contributions and presence are valuable and wanted. This essay is the epitomy of all in Wikipedia that is hostile to newcomers that led up to the WP:BITE policy in the first place. It's the anti-BITE for all established editors who want to be able to pummel the newly registered. And, that, so far in my experience, is precisely how it is used: to hell with bite, you newly registered users better not think you're contributing to Wikipedia when experienced users are perfect. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, more about how stratified and privileged a society Wikipedia has succeeded in creating. Again, I remind you, this essay is used to bludgeon newcomers who dare to suggest that an established editor is doing something against policy when they are doing something against policy.  If the established editor simply followed the rules, no need to template: how about a template that says, "You're not new enough to not know better?"  But, no, only tools for BITING allowed.  --Blechnic (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of this essay should be, "Immature regulars may be insulted if you use templates on their talk pages that were worded for use with newbies." That's because the wording for many of these templates is intended to be reassuring to newbies. Most of them imply, "It's OK, we know you're new and you're still welcome here even though you made a newbie mistake." That reassurance is much more likely to come across as condescension to an immature regular. (A mature regular will take it as intended: a quick and easy way to give a reminder, with no implication of condescension.) (sdsds - talk) 07:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's probably pretty accurate, what the title should be, because the regulars who throw hissy fits about being templated don't seem to know the most basic thing about the template, what everyone here is saying, the wording is for the comfort of newcomers, and it's quick and easy to use. It's too bad the administrative ranks aren't made up of the mature regulars, since it seems lately the ones using this essay as a weapon to badger the undesirable irregular users are admins.  --Blechnic (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of this essay it would appear that a "regular" is someone who feels above being templated. It can vary considerably depending on the person's ego. It seems unrelated to the users knowledge of policy or their ability to follow it. One of the many reasons I have always opposed this being more than an opinion based essay. Chillum  15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A regular is someone who has amassed a certain amount of edits who dislikes having their vandalism responded to like they were a common vandal. I actually agree that established editors should not be treated like newbie or passing vandals; I feel that accounts that have been here a little time should have boilerplated messages in bright vibrant colours that flash on and off and which cannot be deleted for 48 hours. If a "regular" (who by definition should know the ethos of the site) deliberately makes a bad faith edit, then I feel that they are acting worse than any passer by who is out for a few "lulz"... I should comment that this is a pretty singular view, and previously had never had any support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Slightly inaccurate. Worse than not having "had any support," I support your viewpoint.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO templates should only be used if...
...you are doing something automated or repetitious like "recent changes patrol" or " new page pounce new page patrol" There it's necessary to quickly inform the editor and move on to the next page/diff and the alternative would be no notice at all. In all other cases, a personalized message should be used, regular or not.

The only exception would be for obvious vandalism where a "leveled warning" is needed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A huge number of editors have only a handful of edits under their belts. Explaining policy is pretty time-consuming. Policy templates are, when deployed properly, a quick and easy way to inform editors who may not have read up on policy of how things work. Given the extra time required to write a personal message, many editors may choose simply not to bother interacting with new users if templating is disallowed except in very limited cases. The current policy in fine in that regard IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting templating be "disallowed". Only that editors choose not to use them unless there are time constraints such as the examples I first listed. I'll add another case. If the template is one of the functions of a script that tags something for deletion. Come to think of it, the only time I use them is when I do something with twinkle or huggle. The only template I ever manually put on a talkpage is the template. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a "templating my is ok" on my page, but sofixitis pretty damn infuriating...so I can kind of agree with this stance. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of DENY
It is said in the essay that no one likes to feel like the're being beauracratically processed. However I think that reverting and warning either manually or, even better, with Huggle, makes vandals feel the're wasting very little of anyone's time and are being chewed up and spit out in an automated process thas cares nothing about them, which is what we should be after. It could also be considered a form of WP:RBI, spending very little time with and largly ignoring vandals.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Regulars" in the sense implied by the essay really aren't in the same set as "vandals". While regular editors may engage in unproductive editing, few labelled as "vandals" survive long. So the essay doesn't apply to them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars template
Found here: User:Inclusionist/irony

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent template on my page will not be tolerated, as per Don't template the regulars.
 * Don't template the regulars


 * If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit is uncalled for.travb (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Extraordinarly ironic this, isn't it? But maybe that is the intention?-- VS  talk 09:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This essay is ludicrous
"On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these rules."

Maybe, but maybe not. Or maybe they don't care about the rules. One supposedly retired user once stated that WP:CIVIL doesn't trump NPOV, apparently thinking NPOV gave him carte blanche to act like a royal prick whenever he felt like it. Everyone should be subject to being templated, not just "noobs," and being a "regular" is no guarantee of knowing or following all the rules. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further into the essay is clarification for that statement. The example you provided seems to perfectly illustrate the reasons given for the statement in the essay: "a personal message tends to work better in these situations".


 * The essay even further clarifies that even for new users it may be better to write a personal message instead of using a template where it states: "Note, however, that templating at all — to regulars or newcomers — may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). No one likes to feel they are being bureaucratically processed. Writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well if the editor is amenable to reason."


 * Also, keep in mind that this is an essay - not a policy and not a guideline. There is good advice in the essay - as it can avoid misunderstandings and help to resolve issues quicker by avoiding templates in many instances; but it is not a mandated requirement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good advice. Thanks. (Incidentally, the same retired(?) user I mentioned also cited this essay as if it actually held the weight of a guideline or policy.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Templates on talk pages are almost always a bad idea. Certainly I don't see how putting a template on the talk page of somebody who's acting like a "royal prick" is going to result in them behaving better.  john k (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The opposition to this page, so far as I can tell, is generally based around the premise that a template is not an informative message to provide someone with information, but a punishment for bad behavior. If newbies get punished by being templated, why should established users be exempt?  What makes them better than everyone else?  But this is exactly the wrong way of looking at things.  Templates are not supposed to be a punishment.  If they function as a punishment, their use, overall, should be reconsidered. john k (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that they are punitive, but that they are potentially annoying. And they are potentially annoying, otherwise this essay would not exist. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematical
I'll probably end up restating some arguments that have been made before, but I only just came across this essay today, and I'm pretty bothered by it. It should not exist, or at least, not under its present title. Either:
 * 1) It should be deleted (with the implication being that it's okay to template anybody), or
 * 2) It should be replaced with a an essay entitled "Don't template anybody".

A double standard that says it's okay to do thing A to class B but not to class C is, in general, at least worrisome. But here, it's the worst kind of elitism. If the regulars are bothered by being templated, that's too bad, but you know, the newbies are regularly bothered by being templated, too. Many (if not most) of the stock templates have a rather patronizing tone, and newbies are regularly (and with good reason) offended by them.

One of the checks and balances in any reasonable society is that those making the rules have to be subject to those rules, the same as anybody else. If the regulars don't want to be templated, they have no business templating anyone else. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to write an essay contra to this one, you should feel free. Note there is already Do template the regulars, but I don't think Don't template anyone has been written yet. –xenotalk 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally I will add that various parties have sent this essay to MfD for deleted twice in as many years. On both occasions, it was a WP:SNOW keep.  — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed.
 * Wikipedia has this reputation of being aloof, if not overtly antagonistic to newbies. A lot of regulars dismiss this concern, I think, but in doing so they only reinforce the reputation.  And it's only in such an atmosphere that the motion to delete this essay would not stand a snowball's chance. :-( —Steve Summit (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Now, someone is about to slap a "citation needed" tag on my claim of antagonism, but in doing so, they'd be tending to cement it.)


 * Perhaps a better name for this essay would be No one likes getting impersonal template messages, but Wikipedia regulars really dislike it, however that seems a bit ... awkward. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes use templates for IP addresses and for brand new accounts, but I would never use one for an established editor. The reason is that the not-yet-regulars are less likely to know what the rules even are. In my experience, a lot of IP addresses quit vandalizing before you get to a level 3 warning. Just realizing that there's someone watching is enough for a lot of people. For established editors, though, using template warnings is just as good of an idea as trying to put out a grease fire with napalm. It's just about disruptive enough to be block-worthy. I could support a "Don't template anyone" essay. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Templates are.... lame, shall I say? Invokes some sort of pseudo-authority that far too many wiki-nerds-without-clue improperly and destructively employ in service of private egotism.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

re modifying templates with personal comments
User Soundvisions1 added some wording indicating that it is permissible to amend a template, so that it was not so generic and less potentially irritating. I have undone the edit, although I think the consideration behind it to be of value, since it does not reflect practice (as far as I am aware) and appears to be recommending such an approach rather than offering it as a alternative. I believe the original point of the essay was to say that templating is inappropriate, and if there is to be a circumstance where it is appropriate - where it is modified sufficiently to become a personal message, although in a template format - then I feel there should be consensus, and in the manner in which it is suggested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I feel that the suggestion a template may be modified to more accurately reflect the situation and to appear friendlier should be included, perhaps as a option at the end of the main paragraph/section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I did not add anything new, nor add anything out of context. See this version and take note of the wording at The problem with templated messages - look carefully at what is says near the end: Writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well if the editor is amenable to reason. All I did was use almost the exact same wording and reemphasized that. I even said that clearly in the edit summary: (re)Clarify it is ok to rewrite and/or add personal message to templates. Compare the wording. (New wording in green)


 * Template warnings are very generic, and sometimes out of date. Sometimes a template says never to do something which is nevertheless allowed in certain circumstances. Sometimes Wikipedia has multiple policies which are contradictory. If a policy violation is not clear-cut, an amicable resolution to the problem is going to require a human explanation, not an automated template. However using a pre-existing template as a guide, re-wording it or adding a personal message to it, is allowed. 


 * (No changes to the second paragraph, so no need to repaste)


 * Note, however, that templating at all — to regulars or newcomers — may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). No one likes to feel they are being bureaucratically processed . Writing and that is why writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well if the editor is amenable to reason. Failing that, you can append a personal message immediately after the template. 


 * As you can see there is really nothing controversial about that as all it did was re-stress a point already in existence. I am surprised it was reverted. Soundvisions1 (talk)


 * If there is no objection by the end of today I will go ahead and re-add this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be only my reversal, and I think there was a decent consideration behind the action, and no other comments, I suggest you re-add as soon as you wish. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)