Wikipedia talk:Etiquette/Archive 1

message: It worries me that this very important subject matter is spread across at least 3 articles. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I don't see this as situation as necessarily bad or redundant in a functional sense. That is, I think it's valuable to have 3 kinds of pages: 1) a succinct cheat-sheet that we can point people to from the Welcome page or in our personal greetings to new users, which I think is the purpose the Wikiquette page serves now. 2) A good cheat sheet that mediators could provide a link to when a talk page discussion heats up, which I think the "Staying cool" page is meant to be. 3) A deeper and more substantiated discussion of civility to which we might direct the philosophically or ideologically uncivil ("Duh, I know how to be polite, but this place is a jungle and so it's jungle rules that I'm going to go by") or anybody who's interested. I think that's what's going on with the "Civility" page. My worry is that with 3 places for people to contribute ideas on Civility, some pages are liable to miss out on some valuable ideas, and our lean-mean cheat sheets about how to be nice will become bloated tomes that just turn away the cranky and make them crankier. To guard against this, I suggest we formally declare these pages a "series" or group of pages, which each acknowledge each other in some prominent and official-looking way. That way, if someone stumbles on what is not quite the right page for their idea or their need, they will know immediately where to go, and likewise would-be mediators will learn that they have a choice of where to point their hypothetical mediatees, and so be able pick the most suitable one. Also if these pages are more prominently connected to one another, someone with a good idea for one of them will be led to consider whether it's a good one for any of the others, and add it, either beefing it up or trimming it down, as appropriate to the page for which the idea is destined. What do people think? 168... 17:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Group articles?

message: Everytime we edit any page on wiki, we agree to the phrase "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." But there has arisen recently a discussion about it being OK to edit anyone's Headdings and comments on a talk pafge but not other people's talk, even when they are using very negative ad-hominem or building non existant strawmen by mis-representing what another person said. Sorting out all of this can take pages and pages of irrelevant discussion slowing down the process of dealing with the key issues at hand which need to be dealt with in the article. Not to mention itr makes what should be a gentlmanly discussion page into a sullied mud-slinging match with very little valuable input and a lot of wasted wiki server space. There must be Gigabytes on wiki's servers which are currently dedicated to preserving pages and pages of angry talk. As far as I can see there is no policy against editing another person's comments anywhere on wiki. But obviously the point does need discussion. I personally have had my talk page comments edited several times that I can recal and perhaps many times that I am unaware of. It does not bother me because the true record is held in the history pages, and if I have misunderstood someone's point then it is helpful for them to correct my question to make it more relevant. If I have another question in mind I can always post it again. I once started to also clean up a discussion page (Talk:Eber) which had become very nasty once and no-one involved in that page discussion complained. I think everyone was relieved that the wheet was sorted from the chaff. Anyway like I said I think this needs discussion so I am posting it here to see what everyone else thinks. ThankyouZestauferov 03:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The caveat about mercilessly edited writing was intended for article pages, not for Talk: pages. While the articles themselves should be NPOV, people should be allowed to express their POV in Talk: pages without having those they are debating change the comments to what they think they should have been. Jayjg 01:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Talk Pages

message: Is there a reason why the last line (about trolls) in Sanger's farewell advice is missing? If not, I'll append it. Fpahl 10:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fpahl 15:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanger's line about trolls 

message: Hey Folks,
Being new here I did a search for "wikipedia etiquette" which did NOT produce a pointer to this area.  I stumbled upon it while browsing the "read this if new to wikipedia" pages.
This seems too important a topic to be "hidden" -- any suggestions on how to get the search to produce a link to here?
Smooches
:Wikipedia etiquette now redirects to Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Rafał Pocztarski 01:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  not indexed for search? 

message: This was lying around my brain:
:Criticize ideas, not people.  However, if someone's behavior has gotten out of hand, someone should let them know.  But there's no need to be mean or scream and yell.  It's also best if such a message does not come from someone who has recently antagonized them. Consider privately asking a third party to help if you are a party to a dispute with a misbehaving Wikipedian, or just don't want to cope.
A helpful addition somewhere here? Or perhaps some other page? -- Beland 04:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticize ideas, not people 

message: I just changed the notice from "policy" to "guideline".  For my rational, see Category talk:Wikipedia official policy. Isomorphic 05:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline

message: Is there a guideline against editing a person's signed comments on a talk page to change their meaning?  I know the record is in the history, but I don't think people usually go wandering through the history to see what someone really said.  I've seen people insert or delete words that completely reverse the meaning of a post.  That seems like vandalism to me. Shoaler 21:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the meaning of a posting

message: Craig Cobb Wikipedia Biography-Craig Cobb's factual additions submitted BY CRAIG COBB summarily deleted entirety by NawlinWiki.  I submit that I know more about my own life than either NawlinWiki or the author of the original page, whether he/she was or was not NawlinWiki and others.  
Further, Wikipedia certainly does allow personages to edit their own pages.  Yet every single fact I submitted was stripped out by editor NawlinWiki with not even a single query to me.
I respectfully request that my fair editing of the page, which left almost every single negative or critical detail in (excepting anti-Semitic;  I am anti-Jewish) , which entry I corrected in only one of its several places.
At the very least, some portions of my edit should be retained, and a "this page is in dispute" entry be logged on top.  It is unfair to use the original with no additional corrected factual info from myself.  Some of the "facts" were incorrect--years etc.
Thanks to all the other fairer editors for your joint considerations.  I did also upload a photo of myself, but only as a .jpg Wikipedia Commons link.  Having a bit of tech trouble fitting it on the right.  I would be glad to give you all a copy of the edited page which NawlinWiki deleted without polite (or any) query to me.
Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craig Cobb complaint