Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

message: Adding: "*Accusing others of lack of patriotism (which usually is a good thing but context matters)". What do you think? Sometimes someone gets accused of lack of patriotism if he is adding material based or RS that is not flattering to its own country of origin. Cinadon36 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to list all possible insults. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

text: It might not be an "attack" so much as an issue of NPOV. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks both for the replies. , not a matter of NPOV, cos it is a comment on user's character, not on the content of the article. , no we do not need to do it. But it wont hurt adding one more. Cinadon36 10:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No I meant it is not something one should even consider a character issue: it should only be handled on content bases. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "lack of patriotism" at section "What is considered to be a personal attack?" 

message: Any interest in changing  to  in the two spots where this is stated? I feel that the action requires some nuance (as described in the WP:NPA#Removal of personal attacks section), and that giving such an absolute "this is allowed" type statement may encourage newer editors to be a bit reckless with their NPA removals. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you were still planning on making this change, but I agree with it. We rarely see derogatory comments removed except for those which are absolutely egregious. For the most part, I've combed through many article talk pages where insults and ad hominem attacks took place, and they generally are allowed to stand since removing them would be considered unnecessary clerking. It's clear that "no personal attacks" is a policy that should be unequivocally enforced, but any statements regarding how it may be enforced generally are descriptive and not prescriptive. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't feel there is a problem with criticisms being improperly removed as personal attacks. Thus I don't think the sentence in question is resulting in reckless removals. Accordingly, I prefer stating that personal attacks may be removed, to straightforwardly communicate that it is an available choice. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Softening "may be removed by any editor" 

message: Today I accidentally assumed a user to be a bot, judging by their swift answer (~100 words + a revert just under 2 minutes). I think the guideline could use a section on that as well. In fact, users with Twinkie or other tools to watch over fresh edits in Wikipedia can give a scare to a keyboard-only editor like myself. Not that I am proud of asking Adakiko if the swift revert was a "some kind of prank?" - I just hope there will be a guideline specially for non-savvy editors surprised by the speed of such reverts. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a section on calling/assuming somebody to be "a bot" 

message: * In fact, I did a similar thing last year:
  Hello, I'm Loafiewa. 
 I wanted to let you know that one or more of  your recent contributions to :Talk:Mosin-Nagant 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. Thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently, I did that assumption more than once 

message: quote: "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
I propose to remove the word communists for the following reasons:
# Communism in an economic concept where means of production are commonly owned, it is an opposing side of capitalism in contrast to capitalism where means of production are owned by certain invididuals; since communism is an economic concept, to be non-biased, the whole sentence should look like "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, capitalists, terrorists, [...]"
# Godwin's law does not mention communists. Nazism as a whole was condemned by the international community, including both communist and capitalist countries, The Nuremberg Trials, involved an international military tribunal composed of representatives from the Allied powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France; whereas communism is not condemned, or, if condemned, by capitalists or their sympathesizers and vice versa. Due to the controversy of the issue, I propose to remove it. Alternatively, we may add "capitalists" to the list to have it balanced.
--Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comparison list of personal attacks 

message: :Is there a reason, possibly some archived discussion, concerning including or excluding  --- under the section title?
:The Wikipedia community definition of "recurring (repeated) attacks" is , so it would seem uncontroversial. --  Otr500 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring attacks