Wikipedia talk:Etiquette

The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

• Archives: /Archive 1 – to 10 November 2005

• Project page renamed from Wikipedia:Wikiquette -St|eve 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mergeto Civility

I agree with the idea of merging for important concepts, leaving the Etiquette page as a guideline. -St|eve 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome ritual

I see several people (thank you, all of you!) welcoming new people. Many of them use a more-or-less standardized block of text (the ~~~~ trick, a link to WP:5P, ...), followed by a sentence or two customized for that user.

I think User:Tobycat is doing a good job with {{subst:User:Tobycat/welcome}} (see, for example, User talk:ChadThomson).

Is there a place to discuss and collaboratively refine the standardized part of the Welcome ritual message? Or at least collect tips on how to rapidly welcome new users with your own personalized message -- such as the "subst:" template trick? (Which of these would be the best for that: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Talk pages ?) --DavidCary 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This comes a little late, but I would suggest the Welcoming committee. -- Laura S | talk to me 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Changing "Forgive and forget" policy to "Forgive and let go"

I propose changing this to "Forgive and let go". Why? One never forgets really and I think it's a poorly based principle. Additionally, it's important to remember the particular nuisances of a person so you can make more positive decisions about how to deal with them in the future.

What isn't helpful, IMO, is holding a grudge or "gunny sacking". If you are going to let go of something, you should truly be doing so. For instance, in American Indian culture, crimes are punished harshly and quickly. But after that, it is over with. No one is allowed, by custom (not a law) to express anger towards that person after they have been punished.

As such, I feel that "Forgive and let go" would be more contusive to a healthy functioning community than an attempt to loose memory of something which is, IMO, unhealthy, counterproductive, and often not possible.

User:Daniel_Santos

I tend to agree that user:Daniel_Santos proposal has some valid points. Inviting someone to simply forget past injustice and inequity is a request for them to be vulunerable to identical future abuse. Worse, if the perpetrator perceived some personal advantage from poor behavior, it is an invitation to additional bad behavior. After forgiving and letting go (of immediate tit for tat consequences) a few times one can still and always prepare a summary with links to provide to appropriate people, teams, or communities. That said, I think it is important to note that the existing "forgive and forget" probably assumes most rude, offensive behavior is simply erronius not intentional. The "forgive and forget" approach assumes that as grumpy offensive different people apparently lashing out or giving other members of the community reason for taking offense receive only warmth and forgiveness that their behavior will improve in response to ... perhaps copying ... the community at large's good behavior. Ideally then, as we all forgive and forget some past behavior the overall community's ability to get along in the aggregate will improve. Possibly we could merge and modify to "Forgive and let go while taking notes and then iff confident your notes are better than their notes, at serious provocation file a detailed complaint at the arbcom." Actually that still sounds a bit like sand bagging I guess. What did American Indians (or native peoples or senior immigrants) do with recalcitrant repeat offenders? Did the punishment meted out vary depending upon the value of the contributions to the tribe or influence within the tribe? Does the fact that we have no recourse to "harsh" penalties effect the applicability of this example of those who have established communities before to our virtual online community? user:lazyquasar

Forgive and Let Go. I like it. I never thought of that! mezzaninelounge 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WI-kee-ket?

Shouldn't that be WI-kee-kwet, since etiquette is e-ti-kwet? Jongpil Yun 06:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because it isn't. Etiquette is eh-tee-ket.

Interesting... Drahcir (Richard)

[edit] Adopt Non-Violent Communication Principles?

I am a new user and feel excited by discovering the self-organizing principles under which this community runs. It meets my need for hope that in a world where domination structures are part of all levels of organizing we can experiment with other forms of organizing and create more life-serving and peaceful systems on this planet.

Reading the dispute around Darwin-Lincoln and the wide use of judgment and name-calling in that process, it occurred to me that the principles of Non-Violent Communication (as developed by Marshall Rosenberg) may be very helpful for this community. It suggests to approach others from a consciousness of oneness (i.e. seeing the humanity in anyone, even a person that may be resorting to strategies one doesn't endorse at a given point in time) and empathy (i.e. looking to connect to the humanity / what's alive in the other person). It also proposes a process of communication that facilitates that kind of human connection:

1) Make specific observations (rather than generalizations or judgments), e.g. 'you have changed this 37 times' versus 'you have stubbornly changed this 37 times', 'you have twice called me an x and y' rather than 'you behave like an insulting bastard'...

2) State how you feel (rather than confuse feelings and thoughts or attribute feelings to others), e.g. I feel sad and confused, rather than 'I feel abused' (attributes responsibility for own feelings to others), 'I feel you're wrong' also isn't a feeling

3) State your need (versus your strategy) to help yourself and the other side understand what you are looking to achieve and help you empathically connect as human beings, e.g. I have a need for fairness, inclusion, empathy, ... while 'I really need to have this listed' is a strategy to get a need met, not a need as such (a need is free from reference to a specific person or action), e.g. in the mentioned conflict: 'I have a real need for play, you deleting my reference to the coincidence of birthdays makes me sad that I cannot meet that need by sharing these facts I find interesting'

4) Make requests (rather than demands), e.g. in the given case it could have read 'I really understand your need for order and clarity around what information is essential and important. To allow for more playfulness and creativity with the content shared on Wikipedia I suggest we create a 'Random Add-Ons' category for any content that users need to click on to see but that are less constrained by the considerations of how essential or relevant the information is. I would enjoy hearing your reactions or other suggestions for how I could have my need for play and inclusion met.'

Part of the beauty is that even if the other side doesn't follow this process, you can always 'listen for' the actual needs that are alive underneath the judgment, demands or whatever behavior may be occurring that you do not find life-serving.

These methods are being applied in the most difficult conflict situations (civil war, street gangs, ...) to mediate and educate as well as in healing work with victims and perpretators of severe crime. They also are used in schools, prisons and other institutions to help make these systems more life-serving. The energy and consciousness this body of work comes from strikes me as very compatible with that of the creators and (many) participants in this community.

I would welcome comments from others and help as to in which areas of policy these principles may be most helpful (I can think of general discussion, etiquette, mediation and dispute resolution).

One could also write an article about Non-Violent Communication or versions of it for communication, peace-building, mediation etc.

Sjw70 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: interweaving comments

I just added this text to the section on Talk Page etiquette in response to a recent incident where the interweaving made the discussion much harder to follow. In my opinion, interweaving and point-by-point rebuttals are generally bad because they tend to make an already tense discussion even more adversarial. I remember reading this piece of advice long ago but couldn't find again when someone asked me about it. After reviewing a number of pages, it seems appropriate on this page. Please edit or correct it (or point me to the right page if there's a better place for it). Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

Comments should not be unduly long (policy, somewhere). Midgley 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments should generally tackle one thing, one point, one aspect, even if the commentator will wish to comment on several aspects. Not doing that damages threading.Midgley 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Exceptionally, when a long, possibly rambling, multi=point comment covers sufficient ground that putting a response at the end would not clerly associate it with a specific point in the mass, thus not elucidating the meaning well, interleaving a comment may be the least bad solution. Midgley 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Long commments which excite in readers the wish to make a response immediately after some line in the middle of them are highly likely to be bad comments, involving (what is at least seen by some users as) lies or other personal attacks. It is better not to make such comments. If such comments are made, it may be the least bad thing to do to accept that a short comment placed adjacent to them is not an unreasonable response, although reversion, refactoring of the personal attack, or administrative deletion of the whole comment might be better. Midgley 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

When making a set of comments which might reasonably produce responses individually to some, and especially if you do not mind or actively invite such detailed responses, it is sensible to sign each section. Midgley 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Like this. 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose this subpoint be added:

If you do interweave your comments, you should duplicate the signature of the person you are responding to at the end of each section that you are splitting, and sign each sub-response you make individually, so that it remains clear who is saying what.

–Tifego^(t) _{18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had

I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 - he represents himself as ^Talk The Invisible Anon. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. Midgley 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!

Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)

Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!

Kim Bruning 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

[edit] Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?

Editor X accuses on an article's talk page another editor of being a sockpuppet for the purposes of violating 3-RR. Is Editor X violating any policy by making the accusation on the article's talk page? Drogo Underburrow 01:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that the accused editor's alleged socketpuppet has already been user checked and the results determined there was no connection between the two.Giovanni33 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A user check only shows that it's not the same IP. My home IP is completely different from my work IP. I could easily run two accounts that way. The accusation to which Drogo refers is about an editor who has been shown twice (once by check user, and once by accidentally signing as one user while he was logged on as another) to have used puppets. He had been denying it beforehand, and has been denying it ever since. One was his wife, he claims, and the other was a friend that he was introducing to Wikipedia. In both cases, they started their wiki-life by reverting to his version. Finally, the editor who was recently accused of being a puppet of this user has 32 article edits, 30 of which are reverts to the alleged puppetmaster's version. All his talk page edits are in support of this user. He follows him to different pages to support him and vote for what he wants. There is absolutely no doubt that he is at Wikipedia for one purpose only, whether he is an individual person or not. AnnH ♫ 06:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this editor in question and there are some more relevant facts. If this user were being tricky and somehow knew a way to spoof his IP address, then why did the other editors who he didn't want a connection to me to be known to him, get exposed by a user check--while at the same time these other alleged puppets proved to show no connection at all? Logically, he would not use two methods at the same time and if they were all his socks; they would have all been discovered at the same time, along with my his alleged wife, and his friend.

Also, we look at the timing of when he and his alleged socketpuppets edit, their edits do not always come to his aid, nor do they edit at the same time that he would need them--also they have edited at the same time that he has edited, proving that it could not be the same person using different locations. Otherwise, how does he go back and forth from home to work and home again all at about the same time--unless his work is literally across the street from his home? Also, does he have a dozen different work locations? All these users in question were userchecked and showed no connection among themselves either. There are at least a dozen users who have been alleged to be his socketpuppet; it seem that anyone who supports him seems to be userchecked. And, with some, even after being userchecked, the allegations do not stop for this particular editor who makes the accusations. And, its stated as a fact, with no room for good faith or benefit of the doubt, in effect insulting several editors who may be totally innocent.

The question is, when should it be dropped? The only logical possiblity given the facts that are known is that he is innocent and there are other users who do support his POV but don't edit much otherwise, or he just have a dozen friends that he calls and uses them as his meatpuppets. It seems to me one concusion is based on good faith assumptions and the other isn't. In anycase, bring up this controvery on article talk pages is the wrong place as its distruptive.Giovanni33 07:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the comments above very carefully. Such issues appear to me rather "difficult" to understand. I feel I have to learn a lot! --Bhadani 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

I notice that User:ComSpex changed this page from a guideline to official policy ([1]); where is the discussion about this (very significant) change? It may have stemmed from a question to the help desk ([2]) but that doesn't seem like consensus to me.Ziggurat 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ComSpex is new as of March 2006 and I don't see any evidence that this page went through any discussion or policy-proposal procedures. So I figure they were just being bold, and I've changed it back. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate, but equally valid spellings?

Can we have a rule that you should not change the spelling of a word to another equally valid spelling please? I feel that it is important to preserve the article as the author intended in this case and I don't see the merit of changing a word that was already spelt correctly. StephenJMuir 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some guidance on this in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, though it's more specifically for American and British English variations. Essentially the rule is don't change it unless the subject is particularly American or particularly English and the current variants don't match. Otherwise, use consistent AmE or BrE spellings according to the first variant word edited into the article that is one or the other. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So can I revert Arc de Triomphe then? I have already reverted it and the said person has just repeated the change. I would like something added to this Etiquette page about it. StephenJMuir 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. And it's not a matter of etiquette, it's a matter of following our style guide. The most obvious part being the section (Disputes over style issues) that says the Arbitration Committee has ruled that it's inappropriate to change a valid spelling from one style to another without a good reason. It's an anon, and they likely don't understand our policies. So yes, revert at will for this kind of spelling "correction". — Saxifrage ✎ 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting my wikiquette questions answered

Where does one go to ask specific questions about community etiquette? (In this case, "Is it OK to correct the spelling on someone else's User Page, or should I email them, or should I put a notice on their talk page?" The editor in question has made other spelling mistakes, so I don't think it is intentional.)Juneappal 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen similar questions asked at the Village pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyediting Someone Else's Comments? for example) so you could ask there; personally I just drop people a note on their talk page and leave them to change it (or not) themselves. Ziggurat 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about red links

This is a question for any experienced wiki editor. Is it considered "bad form" to start inserting a large number of red links into an existing article? Someone did that to one of the Wikipedia articles on my watchlist, and I'd like to revert most of the red links (since I feel most of them are links to articles no one's going to create any time soon). But I would like someone's opinion about the proper etiquette. Are lots of red links a bad thing? I find them annoying, personally. Sorry if this question has already been asked!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of links, period, is considered bad form. Links in an article should always be relevant to the article (so linking to a passing mention of music in an article about wind generators shouldn't be done). Excessive redlinks usually indicates that most of the links aren't likely to ever be articles, or are linking to the wrong place anyway. The cases where many redlinks are actually legitimate are rare enough, so probably in this case you can just revert the lot. If any are directly relevant to the article, though, see if they can't be salvaged by finding the correct blue link, and any that are really topical yet still red, consider leaving in. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question. I just noticed the note at the top of this page that says "Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally" so sorry for my bad etiquette!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oop, you're right. I missed that too. The Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the place for it. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this policy protect the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls)

As per this official policy, I cannot denounce a user who is obviously making systematic POV and Consensus violations of being/acting "racist", "sexist" or having a "nazi" ideology. Why? It's obvious that such violations of NPOV should be denounced and fought in the benefit of Wikipedia.

In brief, I can't be honest and direct. I can't call things by their name. That's hypocrisy and may protect the worst and most sophisticated infractors of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I suggest that the text is rewritten in a way that when something is blatantly true cannot constitute a violation of this policy.

I also suggest to initiate a guideline on Honesty. We can't be assambleary and nonviolent if we are hypocritical. We must talk things by their names and be able to do so when it's clearly needed. --Sugaar 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Thats true but half the things in this world are presented in a way that they look politically corrcet --Darrendeng 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

References for your "enjoyement" (if you are able to enjoy such things):

• Article White people
• my RFI case

Of course the vandal in question has been spamming my user page - and others - with threats of reports and so on and never ever denied my accusations - that anyhow are patent. --Sugaar 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of real names

Where can I find out about using real names of editors? Some editors like myself would prefer not to have our real names and identities divulged on articles and talk pages even if they are known to other editors, who may be prepared to use this information maliciously on and off-wiki. The point, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is a pointer in the right direction but is not clear enough and may need expansion.

Is this article the correct place to make a mention of how real names of editors should not be divulged especially if this has been expressly asked by the editor? Or does another article deal with that subject? Thanks. ekantiK ^talk 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Would it be appropriate to upgrade this from guideline to policy status? I feel that this is something that should always be followed and should be more than just a guideline. Greeves 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[3] dark tea impersonating wikipedia.

check the discussion on "white people" page for his racist comment --Globe01 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleting other users' comments from one's own user talk page

I didn't find anything on deletion of other users' comments from one's own talk page. It can't be considered good style to do so when there was no personal attack or such in the deleted comments. Can anyone please help me out? Is there any guideline addressing this? —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Found this, where it says: "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." Answers my question, case closed. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting alternative wikis?

Wikipedia:Etiquette#Here are a few things to bear in mind says:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

Proposal: in addition to the above advice, how about suggesting an alternate wiki for material that is irredeemably unsuitable for Wikipedia. That is, before deleting another editor's work, look for another wiki site which might welcome it. The original editor might have no significant motivation to publish the material on Wikipedia specifically; perhaps Wikipedia is the only wiki the original editor is aware of. There are probably wikis catering to almost every sort of content or non-neutral point of view. Perhaps if people had an outlet for their POV urges, they would not feel such a need to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. To support this advice, to tell editors of unsuitable material to try other wikis, we might start a sort of "Wiki outplacement service" in which volunteers would find wikis suitable for material that Wikipedia rejects. I think this would show that Wikipedia respects all its contributors, even if it cannot use their work. When an enlightened corporation lays off workers, it makes some effort to place them in other jobs, rather than simply throwing them into the streets. Perhaps the Wikipedia community can treat at least some of its rejected material with the same respect. Comments? --Teratornis 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopting parts of Wikipedia:Honesty

Would it be a good idea to cherry pick the good parts from Wikipedia:Honesty to merge here? --Barberio 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.'

Hi, I am currently involved in a dispute with an editor who is taking the line 'Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.' to mean that he should remove content disputes from article, project and user talk pages regardless of the wishes of other users. Can we have some clarification of this? Why is this in this page? I would not see this as being a good thing, I would see it as the exact opposite (and it falls fowl of WP:TALK too). Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 08:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] online vs on-line

I moved this: "One could say that it should say 'on-line' above, rather than 'online' with no hyphen." from intro paragraph to here because it talks about whether or not to hyphenate "on-line" in the article, not about the article topic. --Roger Chrisman 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Snafus

I was recently the subject of accused vandalism due to a technical glitch that resulted in a fair number of spaces being removed form a document, and some letters being duplicated.

While changes like this are obviously a problem, and the offending user may even need to be notified if their software continues to cause problems, such glitches do not themselves constitute "bad faith" vandalism.

I think that somewhere in the policies (and this seems like the right place) users should be reminded that Wikipedia is an online forum, and that we are using endless permutations of software as we interact with it. So we each have a responsibility to ask "Was this the author's intent, or a side effect of technology?"

another issue that comes to mind here is that there is no way to convey emotions, so just because you interpret text to have one emotional context, does not mean that others (including the author) share your view. -- Tletnes 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but please just direct me to the right place if it's not. I'm involved in a little discussion on Talk:Hamlet. Can you tell me if it is all right to address this [4] with this response? [5] The other editor involved seemed not think so. [6] Here was my reply: [7]. This may seem silly, but I really want to know how best to deal with editors like this, since it is one of my biggest pet peeves on wikipedia (and I'm sure I'm not alone). Any suggestions or comments? Wrad 00:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion etiquette needs expanding

Hi. There are some good points about the etiquette of deleting, but it is listed in this other article:

Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

I think it would be worthwhile for that information about deletion etiquette to be incorporated into the official Etiquette page. I think that it would help avoid 3RR and editwars before they begin. Lester2 05:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long is long enough to wait?

I think this should be dealt with in the Wikiquette article.

In a discussion basically between 2 editors, a back and forth "conversation" is natural. Make a point, then wait for the other editor's reply.

But a discussion between more than 2 editors is way more complex. Suppose editor A says something, editor B replies, but editor C does not. Time passes. Editor A knows that editor C is interested in the discussion, but A does not know whether:

- C is busy and not looking at the discussion, or if

- C thinks editor B's reply is fine, or if

- C is angry at A and won't reply, or some other reason.

How long is it appropriate for A to wait before moving on?

For example, in a discussion where I made a suggestion for a wording change, within a couple of hours editor B commented and basically agreed with me and made the change to the article. This left editors C and D complaining about the change and reversing it. I can sympathize with that. A couple of hours was too short a time.

But how long is long enough?

And (related problem) if A and B wait three days for feedback from C and D, it is quite possible that editor X will arrive new to the discussion and take the conversation in some other direction, or even change the article wording regardless of the opinions of A, B, C and D.

This issue frustrates attempts at a civil and reasonable dialogue. Wanderer57 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can assume that a person checks wikipedia at least once a day, when they are active in a discussion. However, they can be anywhere on the globe, and they might go offline just when you go online. A reasonable wait period is 24 hours since the last post by that editor. If you want to be really polite, nudge them on their talk page, and wait another 24 hours.

Otherwise, you might be dealing with a "drive by poster", and they likely aren't watching the page.

You can't wait forever, but that's ok, they can always come back later if they really have something more to say. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think

Wikipedia should follow the First Amendment.--Damifb (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think WP:NOT ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something I don't aggree with

The article says:

 Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
   * Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.

I aggree that one shouldn't label or attack people, however I think that saying something like "That paragraph is racist, it implies that Australians are all stupid" should be allowed. If it implies that Australians are all stupid, it is indeed racist. As long as you can explain why it is racist, sexist, poorly written, etc. (and as long as you don't become downright abusive e.g. "That paragraph sucks") I don't see why you should abstain from using any term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dex Stewart (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can say the same thing without resorting to those kind of 'hot-button' words. I would in the same situation say something like :- "That section of the article seems to reinforce and perpetuate certain stereotypical assumptions about Australian people and their supposed lack of intelligence." and lead off from there. Hopefully then I've raised my concerns without potentially aggravating the situation. Exxolon (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interweaving rebuttals into the middle comments

Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you, but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

This can be solved by manually duplicate the signature for every splitted section, for example,

:Paragraph1 ....
:Paragraph2 ....
:Paragraph3 ....
:--User:123 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

when this comments is splitted, duplicate the signature like this,

:Paragraph1 ....
:--User:123 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Reply1 --User:Ans 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:Paragraph2 ....
:--User:123 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Reply2 --User:Ans 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:Paragraph3 ....
:--User:123 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Reply3 --User:Ans 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

--Ans (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your changes to the main page, since you didn't discuss them here first. Interweaving is a bad idea in nearly all cases, even when a signature line is copied.

1. Copying the signature of an editor makes it appear that the editor made several separate comments, rather than a single cohesive statement. The emphasis and even the meaning of an editor's remarks may be changed if paragraphs are broken apart.
2. We expect our editors to be able to follow an argument that is more than one paragraph in length. We also want to encourage editors to use paragraph breaks to improve the readability of their comments—something they will be discouraged from doing if the next editor to come along is going to slice and dice their paragraphs.
3. Paragraphs that started out as adjacent thoughts in a single comment can become widely separated if each paragraph is allowed to spawn its own threaded, multiparty discussion.
4. Participation in the discussion can become difficult, as participants may have to find and respond to many different comments within a single thread edit window. Recovering from edit conflicts is difficult and inconvenient.

If you want to respond on a point-by-point basis, or to start independent discussions on several topics raised by another editor's comments, there are a couple of much better strategies available. Consider quoting a short passage to which you wish to respond (set it off in quotation marks and italics, "like this" to make clear who said what) and respond under your own signature only. Create subthreads under third- or fourth-level headings (====) to discuss different issues that were raised. Don't go breaking up someone else's comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Interweaving" is actually based on a common e-mail method where you use >, >>, >>> and/or indentation to keep track of who says what in an exchange. It's a very important method when you want to be sure you're covering every point the other person made, and is very useful when you want to be sure your answer is well thought out. Apparently people aren't learning to read that anymore? :/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's useful when a couple of people are following the discussion from the get-go and all the way through (like in your e-mail example). It can be confusing to the point of unintelligibility on talk pages, when people happen upon a pre-existing thread that has already become braided, laced, and wattled with interjections and rebuttals by multiple participants. My 2 cents.---Sluzzelin talk 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It works adequately when you only have two participants in a private back-and-forth discussion. In that case, you don't need to keep track of signatures, you know who said what, and you're not worried about the discussion being clear to third parties wandering by.

It breaks badly when there are multiple participants, when there is the potential for edit conflicts, and when not everyone consistently uses the same indenting scheme. Breaking comments up into pieces (and then breaking the replies to the replies into pieces) makes reading a diff unnecessarily confusing. It also doesn't fit with the expected Wikipedia standard of 'one signature equals one comment made'—see my first point about inadvertent (or deliberate) changes to the meaning of a writer's words. It's not good to attach a signature to something that someone didn't say.

We're a different environment from email, for a number of reasons. Tricks that worked (and still sometimes work) in email either break down or have been superseded by better methods. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It worked fine on usenet too (many-to-many) :-P. Works ok-ish in bbcode and slashcode too. So... When was this method superseded, and what better method replaces it? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC) note that some systems have specia [quote] [/quote] tags... something like that helpful here?

This The guidance against interweaving comments conflicts with WP:TALK#Others' comments "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" – "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and in practice it seems to me to be best to repeat the original post italicised, with the new points interjected. See the wee stramash on talk:Australia for an example.[8] I note that it's not clear in this guideline that removing someone else's valid comments is unacceptable, that should be put strongly, in my opinion. Of course removing personal attacks and archiving off-topic tendentious argument remains valid. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A gamesmanship of inoculation

Goes sorta like this. It's bad form to propose stuff----for example, proposals to merge or to delete articles----that the proposer actually opposes, with an exception being made for times when another contributor indeed stands ready and willing to effectively argue its affirmative point of view; otherwise this maneuver unfolds in a manner unfair to this "pro" side. It's the administering of an inoculation, just a wee inadaquately defended suggestion injected toward the hope there will result a buildup of Wiki-antibodies to quash it should the anemic proposal ever rear its beautiful head again. Proper etiquette requires making sure a well-motivated "pro" side advocate is at hand whenever a formal prosition is to be made, the easiest way of accomplishing would be simply not to propose stuff that the proposer him- or herself doesn't support. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any clarifications, refinements, or suggestions that come to your mind as to wording, TenOfAllTrades?

[edit] Vulgarity?

Hi, folks. Sorry for asking a question which perhaps has been asked many times before. However- how do we all feel about gross vulgarity? I don't mean the occasional "hell" or "damn", but things like "fuck" and "fucking". Say that someone writes, "this is fucking ridiculous!" or "this proposal is completely fucked up!". I feel that gross vulgarity like my latter examples is disruptive, chilling and just simply not appropriate for this project. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone is attacking a proposal, then it's a case of "Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED". On the other hand, "You fucking idiot!" is an No personal attacks violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some questionable edits for style in this article

On 4 September 2008 there were two substantial edits by user Kanodin. My attention was called to them initially by the following paragraph: "Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not civil, be more civil than they are, not less. That way at least you encourage conflict and name-calling by your own accord; actively do something about it: take a hit and refrain from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should)." This is fine, except for "at least you encourage conflict and name-calling by your own accord". On the face of it it seems to be saying that it is desirable to encourage conflict and name-calling; presumably the editor did not mean to say that.

At first I thought this might be vandalism, but reading the rest of the same two edits does not support this interpretation: other bits do not look like vandalism. Nevertheless, I feel that some other changes made by this editor are not as helpful as he presumably intended. Most of these cases are small issues of style or emphasis, and moreover in many cases I agree that the new version is better. However the changes do not seem to me to always be for the better. For example:

(1) "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate" is replaced by "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why it is appropriate". It seems to me that here the whole point is to provide reasons why you regard it as appropriate: since (by definition) this refers to a situation where there is disagreement this is all you can do: you cannot presume to state objectively why it is appropriate.

(2) "Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated" is replaced by "Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiate". A minor detail, but at the time you remove or summarize a dispute, the initiation has to have been in the past, and a past tense reads more naturally to me.

(3) "When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you..." replaced by: "When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), prepare to enter into a discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in agreement..." This is a more complex example. (a) I agree that the words "be sure to" are superfluous, and better left out. (b) However to me "be prepared to" does not mean the same as "prepare to": "prepare to" is what I would say if I meant "you are going to do so and so, so make arrangements for doing so", while "be prepared to" is more like "you may be going to do so and so, so be ready for the contingency". The latter seems more appropriate in the context. (c) "Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you" means a little more than "Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in agreement". I prefer the former, as it may be more effective in achieving its intended aim, namely persuading someone that aggressively plugging their own point of view is not necessarily good.

I do not propose to discuss every change in that much detail, but I thought it worth raising the issue. My inclination is to revert many of Kanodin's changes, but I do not wish to do so until both Kanodin and anyone else has a chance to express their opinions on the sort of issues I have mentioned. The one exception is the first example I mentioned ("encourage conflict and name-calling"), which seems to me to be almost certainly an error and certainly unhelpful, so I am going to change that. Also, in the same sentence, but not part of the same edit, is the expression "by your own accord". I am not acquainted with this expression. Perhaps it is well known in some forms of English, but it is certainly not universally understood, so I am replacing it with "by your own example", my best guess as to what it means. If it means something else then I suggest replacing it with another more universally understood expression. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Many of the changes I referred to were concerned merely with minor stylistic matters, essentially personal opinions as to how things should be phrased. It does not seem to me a good idea that every one should edit every time they find something they would have expressed differently, especially without consultation. In a number of cases, as indicated in examples above, the edits seemed to have missed minor but worthwhile points. Since nobody has expressed disagreement with my suggestion I have gone through all the edits on the page. Many I have left, others I have reverted, and some I have done neither, but produced a new version based on the two existing versions. If anyone has any comments about any of what I have done I shall be glad to read them. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)