Wikipedia talk:Concordia

message: Wikipedia:Concordia/Civility oath.
Edit away :) Computerjoe's talk 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I would like a small part of it reworded just a little bit, but I don't have any clear idea yet. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please oh please comment and or edit more. I understand people are going back to school etc after Christmas but please  help nonetheless. Computerjoe's talk 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe have people start signing on talk page?--Banana04131 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility oath draft 

message: A page of interest to our organization has been nominated for deletion. Everyone's welcome to voice their opinion: is it really of any use or does it encourage further incivility and bullying? I haven't ever really taken a closer look there, but I figured some of you might. Миша13 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PAIN]] 

message: There is a proposal that I like: The help desk.  Such a feature will help us as individual to coordinate our efforts together.  We don't need WP:PAIN or any civility noticeboard as long as we have a help desk. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too. --Banana04131 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordia help desk 

message: Is Concordia like Esperenza in the sense that there is a "council" that governs it? There was a page that mentioned that Concordia had a council at one point; is the council going to come back? I strongly believe that Wikipedia should be led by the community, not self-appointed leaders. Greeves 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, the community does not want a council or any form of governance for Concordia.  Cencensus should be enough to organize and keep the project running. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I may be joining in the near future (even without a member list). Greeves 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council 

message: We don't need a member list, it's extra-added beaurocratic paperwork. We have :Category:Wikipedians in Concordia and it takes very little to no maintenance. We shouldn't tell people to sign this list, when they can simply use the category on their userpage. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've turned it into a redirect to the main page. Didn't delete it, so the history is still there. Миша13 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not everyone likes to use userboxes. --Osbus 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but people could also add the category direcly at the bottom of thier userpage, without the box. --24.20.69.240 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no need for userboxes, :Category:Wikipedians in Concordia should be enough. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Userboxes have a nasty habit of getting deleted these days. A category should ne enough - • The Giant Puffin • 12:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A member list does not add much work, and many o us  do not use user boxes at all, and some very active people do not even have much information on their user page. Most similar projects have lists. I would like to affiliate myself, and say so in public, but there's no place to do it. It proves a very convenient way of showing the scope and size of a project--if you want to attract new people to this project, you should put it back. I had no idea that the project was large until I came to the talk page and saw this discussion. There is a great advantage in taking the course others do for trivialities like this that affect the public face. DGG 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memberlist 

message: See header. Computerjoe's talk 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|civil2}} on TfD 

message: This and civil0 through civil4 have all been deleted and I'm glad!  Here is my proposal. --ElectricEye (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|civil}} 

message: I am leaving. Good luck in future endeavors, multus amor --Osbus 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osbus 

message: What is the help desk going to be used for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpdesk? 

message: I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of rememberance and respect. This might be of particular interest to the members of Concordia. Rama's arrow 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks interesting, I'll have a browse - • The Giant Puffin • 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Hall of Fame|Hall of Fame]] 

message: Pretty simple. Set up a "civility mentorship" program. Moved from Concordia's discussion page. Thoughts? --Banana04131 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple adoption with no "civility" banner attached would be better. It would be most helpful to new users who have had their first article or major edit deleted or reverted. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the idea of "mentoring" civility, it implies someone is uncivil.  Instead we should just have a Concordia guideline on what we do to I should have a Concordia guideline on what it means to "foster a friendly and helpful environment" and how we can do this.  See the proposal: Concordia Guideline. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as it does not evolve like the admin coaching did in Esperanza, then I dont see much wrong with it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility mentorship 

message: Before I bring this one up to the overhaul of Wikipedia:Esperanza, because one of the main points here is to keep a cool head, the stress alerts could possibly be more relevant here than over at EA.
:Being as CC just got put up for deletion as well, I'm not sure that would be worth it. - Che Nuevara 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this sounds like a great idea to me since Concordia was designed "to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect." --ElectricEye (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Esperanza claims to "help editors feel more appreciated, combat stress, and generally lend support to the hard-working people here who need it" -- six of one ... - Che Nuevara 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't care for it much. It's too much like Esperanza. However, if people dig it, then so be it. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Wikipedia should not have alerts of individual stress.  Besides, no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia, if they are stressed that is their personal problem and Wikipedia should make no effort along those lines. The user can take a break from Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can use use stress alerts. They might help us locate areas of Wikipedia that need our help, but I don't think we should provide any specialized individual stress relief. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that WP:ALERTS is a page of its own, we can adopt it, but the fact that it's appearent that WP doesn't want adopted projects. I'm not sure. --wL <Speak · Check · Chill> 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can use it, but for an entirely different purpose. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]'s stress alerts to [[WP:CONCORD]] 

message: Make a voluntary help desk to help resolve civility issues before the dispute resolution process.This one of the tasks listed on the front page of Concordia. Thoughts? --Banana04131 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea failed before. Computerjoe's talk 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't really a "help desk" the first time. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like the idea of a HELP desk, but we should not offer any kind of "civility issue resolution". The Concordia Help Desk should not accept reports or requests for help on mediation. Our only response to the help desk should be to help by providing Concordia's spirit of "fostering a friendly and helpful environment" directly as individuals to the areas of Wikipedia that may need it.  The help desk also helps us, it helps us find these areas of Wikipedia. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such ideas got deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. Computerjoe's talk 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, what failed was the Civility noticeboard which is very different from a Help Desk. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Im all for it if it is purely for help - • The Giant Puffin • 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. SR - RE 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Concordia/Help desk|Concordia help desk]] 

message: I... ...We should have a Concordia guideline on what it means to "foster a friendly and helpful environment" and how we can do this. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordia Guideline 

message: The CIVIL templates have been deleted because the community agreed that the warnings didn't work and often made things worse.  If someone is uncivil the wrong thing to do is tag them with a civility warning complete with stop sign.  It more than often creates further bad reaction!  A civility notice should only encourage people to be civil.  It should remind them of actually contributing.  And to reduce the problems of abuse of the template, a difference to the uncivil statement must be provided to be valid.  If no diff is provided, anyone can remove the warning if they feel its so bad to be reminded in this way! (^_^)  So, I'm proposing we create  with this approach:
::* Re your comments: Please participate in a respectful and civil way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view providing free content. Please let me know if you have any questions about contributing. --~~~~
--ElectricEye (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. No stop sign! --Banana04131 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that not using a template at all would be a big step in the right direction. Personal messages are likely to be much more successful. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this argument has arisen in vandalism and reverting templates, but they do help ensure it is well worded and minimize mis-interpretation. It also saves time. Ian¹³/t 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging uncivil users

message: Why would the Concordia thoughts on this page be deleted?
The Chairman of Wikipedia appeals for kindness in May 2011,here, and ensuing discussion here.
Anything which can help with the Chairman's vision should be preserved.  Geoffjw1978 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't delete