Wikipedia talk:No angry mastodons

message: [I will do my best to cite the following, even if I have to go to a real library with real books, should citations become appropriate--TJ]
Books on popular psychology, and classes in intervention and anger management, stress the technique of restating the other party's point of view in neutral terms.  Properly done, this reassures the other party that the doer is really listening and thinking about the issues, and is trying to have a useful confrontation (or even a rational discussion) rather than a destructive argument.
OTOH, arguing intimates have two large advantages:
*A large investment (they are literally in bed with one another), and
*The presence of body language and other non-verbal cues to help with their interpretation of each other.
The foregoing suggests these points:
#The neutral-restatement technique is worth learning.  The good news is that it's not that hard.
#Given only written text, we must apply the technique with extreme delicacy and politeness, or what would be extreme in face-to-face conversation.  This is an extension of e-mail etiquette: e-mailers who know each other can often read between the lines and avoid misunderstandings; strangers must be more formally polite and circumspect.
One good restatement technique is illustrated below.  To use it, just
#Start with a polite introduction;
#Give the restatement;
#End with a request for feedback.
"Let me see if I understand your meaning.  You think it saves money to wash dishes in the dishwasher because that uses less hot water to clean a batch of dishes than a person at a sink would use.  Is that your point?" 
The skill of  neutral restatement is very close to the (absolutely necessary) skill of NPOV article-writing.  Avoid loaded terms.  Translate jargon into common language. Don't be afraid to ask.  [Did I get this right?]
Mastering this technique helps to avoid some common mistakes.  For instance, there is a very human tendency to construct straw man arguments for opinions one disagrees with.  A notable example is feminism, which often gets characterized in negative terms by people who are not themselves feminists.  Editors who hold opposing views can collaborate toward a balanced and neutral article by each contributing a good presentation for their own side, so long as neither constitutes original research.
A related mistake is to speculate about the intellectual capacity or the mental health of other editors.  People do not rise to their best selves when they are reminded of their worst selves or accused of faults they do not possess.  Editors who make these accusations exhibit poor self control.  Leave the angry mastodons in the ice age and focus on the article.
Finally, no technique works every time. It can be hard for people to do justice to opinions they disagree with.  Edit wars can start when one party thinks they understand both sides, but actually mischaracterizes key aspects of the opposition.  The opposing side's assumption of good faith soon expires if the problem persists.  It is time to step back if other editors respond with, "That's not what I said," or "Please stop putting words in my mouth."
===Discussion===
[This is a start.  If you like it, I might try to fold in your remarks on things to avoid (like straw men), under the "learning" point.  Let me know (here is fine).  Best wishes, --TJ 14:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to include a few specific tips on the right way to do this.  For instance, by offering a brief introduction and an invitation to feedback.  "Let me see if I understand your meaning.  You think it saves money to wash dishes in the dishwasher because they use less hot water to clean a batch of dishes than a person at a sink would use.  Is that your point?" Durova 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are so on the same wavelength.  I have refactored slightly, and "taken the text home" (downloaded it) to work without server stress.  Probably back tomorrow AM (EST).--TJ 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Still needs stuff. Will research & return.--TJ 00:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing view section

message: [This is a start.  If you like it, I might try to fold in your remarks on things to avoid (like straw men), under the "learning" point.  Let me know (here is fine).  Best wishes, --TJ 14:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to include a few specific tips on the right way to do this.  For instance, by offering a brief introduction and an invitation to feedback.  "Let me see if I understand your meaning.  You think it saves money to wash dishes in the dishwasher because they use less hot water to clean a batch of dishes than a person at a sink would use.  Is that your point?" Durova 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are so on the same wavelength.  I have refactored slightly, and "taken the text home" (downloaded it) to work without server stress.  Probably back tomorrow AM (EST).--TJ 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Still needs stuff. Will research & return.--TJ 00:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: You know, the first time someone does get trampled because they were busy editing and didn't see the angry mastodon coming down the street and barreling into their house, the author of this entry is going to feel very silly.
On the other hand, if it never happens, I'll look silly instead. As long as it saves people from such a gruesome death as being trampled by angry mastodons, however, I'm willing to live with that.
~Kylu (u|t)  05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As you predicted, people can get trampled, when conflicts arise with other users. Hence, I wrote the follow-up essay, "WP:No angry mastodons just madmen". Many user conflicts can be avoided: remember, there are over 11 million potential articles (including redlinks), so there is no need to fight over any particular set of articles. It is very easy to just drop the conflicts, early, before escalating a confrontation into a situation where someone is WP:Wikihounding to change every article after it is edited. In reality, fight or flight was the serious answer, not the joke as first believed. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not so certain that mastodons would have been that easy to avoid.  When I was in Thailand an elephant sneaked up behind me and almost stole a bunch of bananas I had left on the ground.  I saved the bananas only because I happened to turn around: three ton animals can move quietly. :) Durova 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hah, you say that now, but maybe it's because you've always just happened to look the wrong way when they run past! (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angry Mastodons 

message: That shortcut, NAM, invokes too much of the warlike past.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I think deleting the shortcut based on acronym similarity in this case is ridiculous. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize if I used improper verbiage. Here's the problem: this is a good abbreviation for the article name, and shortcuts are just handy quick links. If you object to the shortcut, at least discuss it with the community first, since it's already in heavy use. If you can find a WikiProject Vietnam or something that this would be a better link for, then I'd say that would be a good argument for your perspective. Otherwise, you can't just ban the usage of it because it reminds you of something. Not everyone likes WP:BALLS and WP:DICK either, for example, but they're valid and heavily-used shortcuts. On the slippery slope, one could also extend this disapproval to a lot of different shortcut abbreviations (particularly the one-letter ones), although I see your point and it's not invalid. The main thing is, this needs to be discussed a little bit, and if you want to create the new WP:KEEPCOOL shortcut, then the page for it needs to be made. The link on the article page here is just a link; it doesn't itself create the shortcut.Thank you for being so humble and civil. The community needs more of that (and maybe I need to work on it as well). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, okay, maybe I'm a liar about it being in heavy use. I'm not sure the fact that not a lot of articles link to it is disproval of my statement, though. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we compromise and put it up at redirects for deletion? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but there are a lot of pages using short redirects like that that aren't policy – many of which will be in the future.Sorry, what exactly did you mean about cutting and pasting new links? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was checking last week I saw a contentious talk page where someone mentioned the NAM shortcut in the middle of a list of policies and guidelines.  To keep the NAM links from turning into redlinks, just go to the "what links here" at the toolbox on the far left of this screen, look for the NAM shortcut links, and paste some other link onto that text - so they'll still go to this essay.  There were only 7 pages today, so it ought to be quick and easy for whoever deletes the shortcut. Durova 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CHILL led to another page until the other day.  I really haven't had anything to do with the shortcuts (and feel rather flattered to see people make them). Durova 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CHILL previously redirected to Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow. In my opinion, it is a far better fit for the content here at "No angry mastodons." Also, the shortcut is not in heavy use, mainly in old AfD discussions, so moving it really didn't affect much. So I moved it. Since it isn't a new redirect, moving it here doesn't much impact the existing level of "juvenalia," if that's what you call the language of a middle aged man such as myself (most definitely not under 30). WP:KEEPCOOL sounds fine to me, if no one else does it first, I can create it later tonight when I have bit more time. dryguy 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. WP:CHILL is still leading to Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow. But somebody put a link at the bottom of that page to this hairy Mastodon article, which is just fine by me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and opened up the RFD. Please let me know if you have any objections.(GeorgeLouis, thanks for being so jovial and polite about this, by the way.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts 

message: In response to the expert rebellion/expert retention issue I've written my second Wikipedia essay, Wikipedia:Light one candle.  
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. - Chinese proverb
Welcoming responses and improvements. Durova 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New essay 

message: The population of angry mastodons just tripled. oTHErONE (Contribs) 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I give up -- I don't get it. Please explain.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Pauline Hanson. Take a look at this. oTHErONE (Contribs) 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dammit. 

message: I am returning to this discussion more than a year later, and I must say that this article has improved tremendously and is fun to read. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A year later . . .  

message: '"If something's wrong and it's not getting fixed, please be patient and keep working on fixing it the right way. If you let your own standards drop because you get frustrated, people will go ewwww and walk away." I don't understand this. Please define "people." Readers? Editors? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors, administrators, anyone who could help to solve the problem.  People don't like to wade through muddy waters. DurovaCharge! 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''ewwww'' factor 

message: The others are elephants! The mastodonts had much longer heads than elephants (to which mammooths are counted), and were very bad wikipedia editors in relation to elephants, which may explain why the former went extinct, and the latter didn't. Said: Rursus ☻ 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Texas shot was identified as a mastodon recreation (yes we also have a couple of elephants; mastodons have gotten scarce). DurovaCharge! 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one mastodon picture!! 

message: I think this article violates Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point becuase it relies upon disturbing imagery to make its point. SharkD (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, this article seems to use humor to illustrate a point. I don't see how it disrupts Wikipedia at all. Please elaborate. Zian (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not constructive 

message: I added the Diving (football) link to compliment the mock outrage paragraph which  Wikidemon ingeniously added on 10 August 2009. Thanks. Ikip  09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Diving (football)]]

message: I think weary is a better word there than wary.  Weary means tired, like "Dang it, I'm tired of all this, I'm going to bed, good night and good bye."  Wary has more connotations of cautious, prudent, careful, although it does also mean timorous (which basically means scared), but we do want users to be cautious, prudent, careful.  We want editors to be wary of mistakes.  We want people to be editing when they're happy and alert and fully awake, or when they're definitely not weary, so that we don't all become weary of mistakes. Banaticus (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed we should be wary of our mistakes (and those of others) but not weary of noticing and correcting them.  Nice rant!  Not sure of the point of it though...  --Jubilee♫clipman 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  weary vs wary 

message: Shouldn't this page be marked  or some such?  --Jubilee♫clipman 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Humorantipolicy is more for modest proposal sort of pages that vent frustration or illuminate absurdity by satirically advocating negative behavior. This page, while it certainly uses humor, directly points to steps editors can take to improve everyone's Wikipedia experience and, by extension, Wikipedia itself, through cooperation rather than confrontation. It is tagged as an essay, which is appropriate. - Tanetris (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: !Policy

message: While describing Alex Kozinski as ”well-known” is more accurate now than ever, citing his advice on handling “potentially defamatory allegations” may leave future readers with a different impression than originally intended.
23.115.162.60 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What would that "different impression" be? Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Avoid angry mastodons]]: [[Alex Kozinski]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Advice for editors. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  –Sonicwave talk 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:Advice for editors" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Text and references copied from WP:No angry mastodons to Wikipedia:Don't eat the troll's food.  See history of former article for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution