| Revision as of 20:26, 24 September 2024 editHLHJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,770 edits →Proposal: new uncited-content template: box formatting fixed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:32, 27 December 2024 edit undoKenneth Kho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users908 editsm →Can we write Template:uw-vandalism1 to encourage the reader to put their energy into good use? | ||
| (84 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skiptotoctalk}} | {{Skiptotoctalk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW|wp=yes|noarchives=yes|search=yes |
{{Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW|wp=yes|noarchives=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings/templates/talk-header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings/templates/talk-header}} | ||
| {{Central|text=all ] talk pages and ] project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.}} | {{Central|text=all ] talk pages and ] project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 21 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == Can we write ] in a more formal tone? == | |||
| == Using AFC == | |||
| In the user warning vandalism series of user message templates, I noticed that ] uses contractions and ends with "Thanks", but the rest of the user warning vandalism series templates do not. I propose we could rewrite ] as follows, using ] in this instance. | |||
| Various policies and guidelines tell conflicted or paid editors to use ]. | |||
| :{{{icon|]}}} Hello, I am <includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>. I wanted to let you know that one or more of ]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| to ]}} have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use {{safesubst:<noinclude/>sandbox link}}. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the ] or the ]. {{{2|Thank you.}}} | |||
| On {{Tl|uw-coi}}, shouldn't: | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| 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. ] (]) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Blockquote|avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;}} | |||
| :{{replyto|Z. Patterson}} Have you looked at the other level 1 templates, such as ]? Most (if not all) end in either "Thanks" or "Thank you", because they ]. If it's clear that the user has begun with a ''bad'' faith edit, you don't need to begin the chain with {{tlxs|uw-vandalism1}}, you can go straight to {{tlxs|uw-vandalism2}} - or higher, if necessary. --] 🌹 (]) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Redrose64: I understand now. Thank you. ] (]) 20:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: unblock|reason=Your reason here == | |||
| say something like: | |||
| 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. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Blockquote|other than in the ] (where you should declare your CoI), avoid avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;}} | |||
| :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. – ] (]) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (which could be split over two bullet points)? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Delete ] (]) 12:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Or you may simply create a new account for editing == | |||
| :No, I prefer it as it is. ] (]) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not a matter of personal preference; it's a matter of giving (new) users correct and relevant information. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The last sentence ends with, "{{xt|or you may simply create a new account for editing}}". This almost sounds like a solicitation of ], 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: | |||
| == Uw-block edit request for dark mode compatibility == | |||
| * {{xt|...or you may simply abandon this username, and <nowiki>]</nowiki> for editing.}} | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The last sentence of what? ] (]) 08:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-block|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::I'm assuming it's <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> ] (]) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please merge changes at ] so future substitutions are dark mode compatible. You can also check testcases (]). —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''] - ] - ]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}<!-- Template:ETp --> ] (]) 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == We should change LLM misuse level 4 in the table in ] == | |||
| == Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2024 == | |||
| Right now, it indicates that the warning template should be <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]:]<nowiki>}} but we already have ] for that purpose - should the table be edited? ] (]) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-editsummary2|answered=yes}} | |||
| Currently, {{tl|uw-editsummary2}} uses ] with the empty argument <code><nowiki>|link=</nowiki></code>, preventing it from linking to its information page. According to {{slink|Help:Pictures#Links}}, since the file's ] license requires attribution, the image ''should'' link to its information page. Therefore, I think it should be changed from: | |||
| <syntaxhighlight lang=wikitext> | |||
| ] | |||
| </syntaxhighlight> | |||
| to: | |||
| <syntaxhighlight lang=wikitext> | |||
| ] | |||
| </syntaxhighlight> ] (]) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I |
:I ] - if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and we'll discuss. ] (]) 13:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Can we write ] to encourage the reader to put their energy into good use? == | |||
| :{{complete2}}. ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>20:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Thanks for the license fix. It's unfortunate that it's necessary, though — from a usability standpoint, it's not very helpful to have a link to an icon file page in a notice. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that these links are annoying as a user, I've clicked them by accident before and it is very confusing to get suddenly sent to the media viewer. It would be great if a CC0 icon set could be found or created to replace the ones often used for these templates, since it wouldn't require any attribution whatsoever. I'm sure such icons probably exist but am also nearly certain that changing these very commonly-used icons would make a non-zero amount of people unreasonably upset. ] (]) 04:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks like the information icon currently displayed on the side of the closed edit request template in this section, for instance, is public domain (]). ] (]) 04:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I propose adding "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, please be ] 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 ]. ] (]) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder template for undue detail per ]? == | |||
| : ], see {{tl|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 {{tl|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 ] 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. ] (]) 00:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I am actually picturing a pure vandal here. I am not endeavoring to teach them about Misplaced Pages, or to be civil at them. | |||
| It's possible that a majority of edits I have to routinely revert are that aren't covered by a template are substantial additions of sourced, verifiable, but deleterious material that is some combination of tangential, excessively detailed, redundant, or otherwise irreparably undue as to unbalance the coverage or coherence of the article. {{tlx|uw-fringe1}} is the closest, but is obviously not appropriate in most cases described above. Perhaps the template can standardize the common suggestions to move the content to a more specific article, more briefly summarize it in context, or compare with how analogous content is treated across several related articles <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::However, ] 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. | |||
| == Templates Lang1 through Lang4 == | |||
| ::Remember, a lot of these juvenile vandals represent a large part of our loyal readership who ] and they bring in fresh perspectives to Misplaced Pages when they choose to contribute in good-faith. ] (]) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{temp|lang1}}, {{temp|lang2}}, {{temp|lang3}} and {{temp|lang4}}, which are redirects to different user warning templates, have been nominated for discussion or deletion at ]. Please leave any comments you have there to keep discussion in one place. ] (]) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Kenneth Kho}}, if you know templating language, why don't you propose a specific example in the sandbox? And if you don't, you can just enter your proposed text of such a template below. ] (]) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I created it in my talk page <s></s>, it was modified from the source found using view source on the template page, does that look right? ] (]) 09:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == New template? == | |||
| :::::I used the wording "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, you may ] and improve it. If it makes the encyclopedia better, it is less likely to be undone!" - The reason is that I want them to get excited about not getting reverted, rather than the bold edits themselves. This will set a great mindset when they start becoming constructive, but still stumble upon a few rules and get reverted, they would want to avoid making the same mistakes to get their work kept. ] (]) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any way we can create a template regarding people who comment on closed discussions? Because I ran into that problem a couple weeks ago and had to use a ] and append a message onto it; when I think a level 2 template specifically for commenting on closed/archived discussions would have been a lot more appropriate. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is this happening often enough that there's really a need for a template? It seems to me you could just leave a message saying something to the effect of, "Please don't comment on discussions once they have been closed/archived. Thanks!" ] (]) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I’ll get back to you on it. That particular editor had done so twice. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal: new uncited-content template == | |||
| ] | |||
| I'd like to propose this ]. I've noticed an increasing number of editors are deleting content they think is accurate and verifiable. They wrongly think ''all'' uncited content must be removed, not just ] content. This is not what policy says. | |||
| New editors often add uncited content. When uncited content mostly got cited or tagged, editor numbers were growing exponentially. When it mostly gets deleted, editors numbers decline or just about stay steady.]] More fixing and tagging of uncited content could significantly increase editor retention. | |||
| My goal is to give recipients information about what policy is, and why, and what the alternatives to deletion are. | |||
| Crit and suggestions very welcome! ] (]) 22:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you suggesting ], or is this only intended to be used when it's newer editors who are removing unsourced content? ] (]) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's mostly new editors and even IPs I've seen removing unsourced content (I once saw an IP which reverted very solid unsourced content on Japanese furniture by an admin living in Japan; I ''confidently'' restored it). If a regular wrote or behaved in a way that convinced me they believed they needed to remove content they thought was unsourced but otherwise fine, then I suppose an informational template would be actually informative, and hope it would therefore not be resented. I'd be slower to assume ignorance in the case of an experienced editor, but I'm still finding corners of the wiki where I am ignorant, so I'm not offended when people tell me stuff I might not know. The rvv stuff is a bit obvious, but I think it's needed as a counterbalance. I can't promise no-one will ever misuse this template, but I can hope... {{smiley}} ] (]) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not really a fan. Speaking from experience, I think editors who are willing to remove unsourced content already face a great deal of pressure if/when they do so on a regular basis, and I think templating newer editors who are presumably operating in good faith in this manner is just going to lead to more editors who are afraid to touch unsourced content lest they get sanctioned for doing so. If we could guarantee this template would only be used in cases of egregious overreach I might feel differently, but there's no such guarantee of that. As such, I think while it might be understandable to advise editors in cases where one feels they're unnecessarily removing unsourced content, I don't think we should routinize and depersonalize the process. | |||
| :::I guess my other question is in regards to ''when'' this template is intended to be used. I feel there's a difference between newly added unsourced content where the adding editor can be identified, and unsourced "stable" content. If an editor is removing uncontroversial "stable" content for lacking sources, then I would agree that there were probably better options available, such as tagging it. If an editor is focusing on newly added content though (as I do), then I have much less of an issue with it being removed if the editor who added it is being asked to provide a source in the process; indeed, I think this is one of the primary ways that many editors become familiar with the general need to source content when adding it. | |||
| :::TL;DR I'm not comfortable with the template presently, but might support a version clearly intended to be used only in cases of egregious removals of unsourced content in cases where the unsourced content had also been in the article for a significant amount of time. ] (]) 14:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah. In that case I agree with you; the template is clearly not saying what I meant it to say. I want to ''encourage'' editors to ask other editors to provide sources. I agree that this is an essential part of teaching new editors. Clearly the template needs a drastic re-write. Thank you very much for the feedback. | |||
| ::::I think, based on the research evidence ], that it's significantly more effective to teach sourcing by promptly tagging unsourced new content than by removing it and then trying to engage with the editor. Evidence is that ''most'' new editors struggle, and indeed fail, to use talk pages. They also mostly don't understand that reverted edits are still accessible in the page history. But they often check back repeatedly to look at the content they added. If the content is newly-added, and another editor tags or improves it right away, the new editor is likely to see that and respond, usually by fixing up the content or adding more content (following the model they have been shown) and they are much more likely to keep editing. I want to encourage prompt criticism and correction, and I want to encourage it in its most effective forms. | |||
| ::::Of course sometimes prompt deletion is unavoidable, and I want to encourage that, too. | |||
| ::::I agree that the template should not threaten sanctions; it's intended to be informational. Sanctions are not a suitable remedy for ignorance. | |||
| ::::Perhaps a flowchart-like form would work better? Something vaguely like:{{Tmbox|text= | |||
| Was the content obviously added in bad faith? That is, the editor isn't trying, not even really incompetently, to improve the encyclopedia? Delete. Use curt edit summaries, like ]. Avoid engaging the bad-faith editor. | |||
| ::::# Is it ]? Remove immediately, linking to ] in the edit summary. | |||
| ::::# Are you pretty sure it's unverifiable (that is, no sources exist, or it misrepresents the balance of sources)? If appropriate, replace with a sourced contradiction. Otherwise, remove, giving the reason and linking to ] in the edit summary. | |||
| ::::# Is is probably verifiable, but you haven't checked? | |||
| ::::## Ignore it; always an option on a volunteer project. This is more suitable for uncontroversial topics, and topics where misinformation is fairly inconsequential, and topics where misinformation is more likely to be fixed. It is also more suitable if you lack expertise or interest in the topic. There are other editors. | |||
| ::::## Ask other editors to check. This is more suitable for controversial topics, expert topics, and topics where misinformation is dangerous andor unlikely to be fixed. | |||
| ::::## Check | |||
| ::::###Did you find sources? Add them. | |||
| ::::###Are you having trouble finding sources? Ask the editor who added the content to add sources (this is most effective if done with inline tags; also sending a talk message is optional) | |||
| ::::###Is finding sources impossible (that is, you've decided that it's unverifiable after all)? Modify the statement and cite it, if possible. Otherwise, delete with explanation, and engage with the editor as appropriate. | |||
| ::::Engage editors if they are new and well-intentioned but not yet competent. If you have to delete their edits, try to make sure they understand why; new editors often don't see edit summaries and talk pages notices. If possible, help them make a productive edit. It's a lot of work, but it significantly increases their chances of becoming long-term editors. If your actions retain a new editor, you've doubled your contribution to the project.}} | |||
| ::::Does the imperative makes this sound patronising? It's hard to write somethign that is clear to the newest editors without splaining anyone. | |||
| ::::I'm mostly worried about editors (often with semi-automated tools) regularly deleting stuff with comments like "good content but needs sources, sorry", "probably true but removed cuz uncited", or just "removing unsourced content" (people making similar statements in discussions can just be replied to, templates not needed). In some cases a closer look shows that it's unverifiable, or BLP, or some such, but sometimes an editor will delete a lot of well-written, really easy-to-cite content, without any attempt at engaging a new editor, and will even indicate that they don't like doing this but think it's their duty, because unsourced content cannot be allowed in Misplaced Pages, even temporarily. I want to tell them there are alternatives. Perhaps we can narrow the template accordingly. ] (]) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:32, 27 December 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing Template index/User talk namespace and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | This page is part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in. |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one. |
| Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages when they choose to contribute in good-faith. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Kenneth Kho, if you know templating language, why don't you propose a specific example in the sandbox? And if you don't, you can just enter your proposed text of such a template below. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I created it in my talk page
, it was modified from the source found using view source on the template page, does that look right? Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- I used the wording "If you see a paragraph and you can improve it, you may be bold and improve it. If it makes the encyclopedia better, it is less likely to be undone!" - The reason is that I want them to get excited about not getting reverted, rather than the bold edits themselves. This will set a great mindset when they start becoming constructive, but still stumble upon a few rules and get reverted, they would want to avoid making the same mistakes to get their work kept. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I created it in my talk page
- Kenneth Kho, if you know templating language, why don't you propose a specific example in the sandbox? And if you don't, you can just enter your proposed text of such a template below. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)