Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 1

message: # Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
^
|
What exactly does this mean? I can edit the comment someone made? I'd like to use this, but I'm not sure how. -GregNorc (talk) 00:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
:The bot=1 flag simply refers to the ability to hide or include edits made by automated processes (bots) which are not human editors.  No, you cannot edit others' edit summaries, but of course you can remove or change the content which has actually been added to a page. -- Beland 03:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  &bot 

message: I proposed a merger from that page to this one.  Thoughts? -- Beland 01:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Negotiation]] mergefrom 

message: There's a new approach being formulated to deal with annoying personal remarks. One aspect being considered is the special case wherein the target of an unwelcome remark wishes to raise an objection. 
I've recently come around to the idea that it may be better not to raise the prospect of bans or blocks oneself as this may be seen as a sort of retaliation - which could willy-nilly add fuel to the fire, so to speak. (To be frank, this is a mistake I just made last earlier this year with csloat on a gitmo talk page; let's all learn from my mistake.)
The upshot of this, is that "we who are innocent" must be patient - but we can also seek help. But while waiting for help to arrive, we can still say something like:
:I wish you wouldn't call me a racist.
If a response comes back like
*I did not mean you, or
*Don't take it personally, or
*That's not what I meant
...then do not respond further. Either disengage, or ignore it. Let others help restore civility; you will have done enough. Uncle Ed 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility and how to attain it

message: I don't feel that 
* starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
should really go among the examples of more serious incivility. Any objections if I move it to the examples of petty incivility? (And please don't think I'm saying that it's okay to start a comment like that. I just think it's more in place with the existing petty examples than with the existing serious examples.) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Reinyday, 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've gone ahead and changed it. I hope I'm not being too hasty in doing that without waiting for other comments, but it really doesn't seem to alter the basic message of the article. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Trouble with this example is that of course it's just a warning bell, or as it were, an "incivility schema".  What follows might be any degree of incivility, from mild to extreme, or indeed none (well, in theory).  Alai 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always had a high level of disdain for people who begin a paragraph with, "I don't mean to sound like an arrogant, ignorant, flaming jackass, but..." because it intuitively states the obvious. They are apologising in advance, knowing full well that people will react to them exactly as they have already indicated they will be making themselves appear. My take: if you don't MEAN to be <insert description here> then just don't do it. Make your case, or don't. If you are aware you are going to torque people off to the nth degree, why are you bothering to phrase what's coming in that manner? Tact. Such a simple word. Such a huge potential for damage. Ever wonder what one of the many things wrong with the modern world are? We as a species forget all about tact as a simple courtesy to the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of others. Weaponofmassinstruction 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petty example listed with serious examples 

message: I have added language regarding taunting using the behavior of  as an example Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Taunting

message: du-0	This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).
Template:User du-0 is up for deletion. I feel that it is inherently uncivil — and that this fact is entirely obvious. Opinions here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_du-0. — Davenbelle 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User du-0]] 

message: Someone suggested a merge, without filing a talk page entry. Will remove the tags for now. I disagree that Civility (a core principle) is the same as Etiquette (a peripheral guidline), but agree that they are related and should have some integration. -St|eve 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]] 

message: Restrict access to Wikipedia for some classes of people more likely to be offensive (reducing openness)
What kind of classes? Profiling by age, race, geographical location, ideology? Proposed change: just delete the sentence.
Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave Wikipedia or simply allowing the editor to leave -- whether or not that person was the offender or the one guilty of the offenses -- in order to reduce the level of conflict)
This sounds like overkill. Proposed change: "Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict." Also, the bullet point should be moved later in the list (ie after less severe remedies).
Request the use of real names to force editors to take responsibility for their behavior (although this is generally considered not desirable on Wikipedia)
Requesting real names would be especially impractical during an edit conflict, as people would be worried about the conflict spilling into real life. Proposed change: add ", and especially impractical during an edit conflict".
Thanks, Andjam 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: I am a great believer in the concept and the policy of WP:CIVIL. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, public civility is the only way to achieve peaceful coexistance of people with widely varying opinions.
A recent episode, however, has indicated to me that the policy should be loosened slightly. Editors should feel free, on their own User talk: pages, to react less than perfectly civilly to ugliness, harassment, racism, trollery, stalking, pestering, condescending -- ok, whatever annoys, bothers, or offend them. I'll use myself as an example here. A pest of a certain socio-political viewpoint, one with a hatred of people of my religion (and other people ethnically and/or religiously and/or socially different from the pest) and a strong admiration for early-to-mid-20th-century German political currents, was posting very rude suggestions on my talk page. I responded with a heartfelt and very well considered "Fuck off, Nazi." This was certainly an uncivil action on my part; however,  the context of the remark and the location of the remark, in my mind, dramatically reduced the potential damage to the community that WP:CIVIL is designed to prevent. 
The problem is that different people have different ideas of civility. "The coward does it with a kiss; the brave man with a sword." I think it's grossly uncivil to goad someone, even with polite words, into uncivil response. I think that condescending sarcasm, while it might cause owies to sensitive egos, is not an inappropriate response to perceived cluelessness. I think bitterness is not an inappropriate response to hate speech. 
Allowing a bit more freedom of speech on editors' own User talk: pages will remove a tool for harassment and goading. If an editor is offended by something said on someone's User talk: page, there's no reason they need to go to that page again looking for other things to be offended by. If you're the easily offended type, take the time to become familiar with how an editor reacts to the sort of suggestion you're about to make before you make it. Nobody is forced to read anyone else's User talk: page, nor to engage anyone in particular in dialog.
In short, WP:CIVIL should be modified or interpreted to grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I really have any involvement with this, but let me state my complete agreement for the record, since I happened to be passing by. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm passing through too, following a link from your ArbCom election statement, but I, too, have to say I wholeheartedly back this. PurplePlatypus 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it be easier just to revert your Talk page?  That way, you don't have to look at the offensive comment any more, and the action is a clear message: "Leave me alone."--TJ 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk: 

message: The article says:
"Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)." How does one go about reqesting technical help in this instance? Shiroi Hane 11:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Summaries