Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

Overly first-person warnings vs a modicum of passive voice

The overly-first-person voicing of the level 1 warnings causes a problem - it takes away a common use case. It is not usable when I am warning due to another editor's removal, which is a very common use case. The following suggested change to the wording of {{uw-error1}} suits both 1st-person and 3rd-person use cases, is still friendly, and still takes responsibility (desired changes are bolded):

Hello, I'm Lexein. Your recent edit to the page Jamie Lee Curtis appears to have added incorrect information, so it was removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,

I would like the main discussion reopened, or at least for this version to be still available as a mod to the current voicing for all level 1 warnings. Please don't un-assist editors!

Is this intended to discourage 3rd-party warning?
I can always just start with level 2, because it's inefficient to edit the template output to restore the intended, and usable, meaning.
Will prior versions be retained, renamed?
Or shall I just create a new suite of level 1 warnings, named {{uw-error1-u}}, with -u standing for "universal use case"

So, if this is the wrong place, where is the best place to widely discuss this for all level 1 warnings? --Lexein (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new current wording of level 1 warnings are absolutely terrible to be honest. Ever since i discovered the change i never ever use it, if i revert vandalism then i will simply use a level two warning instead now. As you rightly point out the current wording prevents 3rd parties issuing the warning if someone else reverts, not to mention the fact it basically encourages the person being warned to head to the editors talkpage. Id support a change that fixes it to be less first person. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This page turned up on my watchlist, I suppose because I was following the original but alas, now closed first discussion, where I had commented entirely negatively. I too refuse to use any of the amended level one warnings. I have several of my own wording that I use for more friendly welcoming warnings. Otherwise I use a level 0 vandalism warning ({{uw-vandalism0}} or jump straight to a 2. The zero one is worded perfectly for much of what I revert (junk text, test edits or silly vandalism). For the serious stuff, no matter the category, I now use two's or higher. Thanks for the space to comment. Fylbecatulous talk 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]