Misplaced Pages talk:Etiquette: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:05, 7 November 2006 editLuigifan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,752 editsm →Why does this policy protects the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls): Spellcheck← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:07, 16 November 2024 edit undoShellwood (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers404,758 editsm Reverted edit by 103.67.62.22 (talk) to last version by Qwerfjkl (bot)Tag: Rollback
(226 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader\|search=yes}}

	{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages\|Etiquette.ogg}}

	* ] - old discussion
	----		----
	* Project page renamed from ] -]\|] 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)		* Project page renamed from ] -]\|] 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
	* Old discussion archived 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC). ]\|] 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

			== Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had ==
	== Mergeto Civility ==
			I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. ] - he represents himself as ]. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. ] 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	I agree with the idea of merging for important concepts, leaving the Etiquette page as a guideline. -]\|] 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

			:I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Welcome ritual ==

			:: Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!
	I see several people (thank you, all of you!) welcoming new people.
			:: Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)
	Many of them use a more-or-less standardized block of text (the <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> trick, a link to ], ...), followed by a sentence or two customized for that user.
			:: Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!
			:: ] 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

			::I strongly disagree (but I'm admittedly biased). A signature is intended to ], not as a "badge of status" or a "technical measure". Many users have signatures that are not equivalent to their account name; changes have been forced only where disruption and impersonation were involved. As far as I can tell, "The Invisible Anon" linked his signature to his correct user/talk page (which your example above does not correctly indicate). Finally, even if you think there is a real justification for this guideline, it should be included at ], not here. – <span class="IPA">]</span>  00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
	I think ] is doing a good job with <code><nowiki>{{subst:User:Tobycat/welcome}}</nowiki></code>
	(see, for example, ]).

			:::I'm surprised this went unchallenged for so long. It's totally wrong. First of all, I have no reason to believe it's an "etiquette" issue. Second, if it's wrong for anons, it's wrong for registered users too. I've seen plenty of sigs that use names (or symbols, etc.) different from what the username is. There's absolutely no reason to act prejudicially toward anons on this one, and offhand I don't see a reason to blanket disallow it for registered users either.--] (]) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
	Is there a place to discuss and collaboratively refine the standardized part of the
	message?
	Or at least collect tips on how to rapidly welcome new users with your own personalized message -- such as the "subst:" template trick?
	(Which of these would be the best for that:
	],
	],
	]
	?)
	--] 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

			== Means of addressing violations of WP:EQ ==
	:This comes a little late, but I would suggest the ]. -- ] <font color="#474645">\|</font> ] 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
			] states that a user should (1) keep biases in check and (2) act to improve wikipedia articles.

			If these two guidelines are violated, what is the recourse? For instance, if an editor goes systematically through articles putting ''fact'' tags on pro-homosexual statements, or deletes them, but never contributes to articles, and appears to never make good-faith attempts to find sources to support and improve articles, that author is clearly failing to keep biases in check, and is motivated more by an agenda than an interest to improve articles. Some may argue that this strategy, in the end, improves articles. Maybe that's true, but it doesn't deny the fact that the ] principles are being violated.
	== Propose Changing "Forgive and forget" policy to "Forgive and let go" ==

			In these cases, what is the proper recourse? Should individual edits, which are in themselves reasonable but on the whole clearly violations, be reverted? That seems likely to cause an edit war. Otherwise, what is the procedure?
	I propose changing this to "Forgive and let go". Why? One never forgets really and I think it's a poorly based principle. Additionally, it's important to remember the particular nuisances of a person so you can make more positive decisions about how to deal with them in the future.
			--] (]) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

			== Unhelpful edits by 71.155.232.61 ==
	What isn't helpful, IMO, is holding a grudge or "gunny sacking". If you are going to let go of something, you should truly be doing so. For instance, in American Indian culture, crimes are punished harshly and quickly. But after that, it is over with. No one is allowed, by custom (not a law) to express anger towards that person after they have been punished.
			On 1 January 2009 a string of 8 edits were made by an anonymous editor using IP address 71.155.232.61. The worst of these edits were false ("The system is based on the presumption that a popular position is a correct position") and the least bad were simply not on the topic of etiquette ("Write succinctly. Omit needless words.") Some of these edits have already been reverted, the rest I am reverting. ] (]) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

			== Unhelpful merger proposals ==
	As such, I feel that "Forgive and let go" would be more contusive to a healthy functioning community than an attempt to loose memory of something which is, IMO, unhealthy, counterproductive, and often not possible.
			It is a nuisance that Misplaced Pages readers propose mergers of articles or lemmata, who definitively do not have the lingual capability of a native speaker in the repective language nor of any expertise in the topic. Who on Earth has set the idea that an encyclopedic database will grow on mergers? Could all those who like to find options for mergers think about the possibility that there are other views but one of two? Anyone who proposes mergers should be willing to contribute to additional stuff, but not just to save server capacity. Any objections that I might understand?] (]) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

			== Proposal for a point of etiquette: "Avoid indirect criticism" ==
	]
			I propose adding a point of etiquette to this guideline as a subsection of "Misplaced Pages etiquette", probably at the bottom of that section. The text would look something like this:

			{{Quotation\|<span style{{=}}"font-size:1.4em;font-weight:bold;">Avoid indirect criticism</span>{{shortcut\|WP:INDCRIT}}<p>Avoid use of unexplained ] and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of or critical response to talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to.</p>
	I tend to agree that ] proposal has some valid points. Inviting someone to simply forget past injustice and inequity is a request for them to be vulunerable to identical future abuse. Worse, if the perpetrator perceived some personal advantage from poor behavior, it is an invitation to additional bad behavior. After forgiving and letting go (of immediate ] consequences) a few times one can still and always prepare a summary with links to provide to appropriate people, teams, or communities. That said, I think it is important to note that the existing "forgive and forget" probably assumes most rude, offensive behavior is simply erronius not intentional. The "forgive and forget" approach assumes that as grumpy offensive different people apparently lashing out or giving other members of the community reason for taking offense receive only warmth and forgiveness that their behavior will improve in response to ... perhaps copying ... the community at large's good behavior. Ideally then, as we all forgive and forget some past behavior the overall community's ability to get along in the aggregate will improve. Possibly we could merge and modify to "Forgive and let go while taking notes and then iff confident your notes are better than their notes, at serious provocation file a detailed complaint at the arbcom." Actually that still sounds a bit like sand bagging I guess. What did American Indians (or native peoples or senior immigrants) do with recalcitrant repeat offenders? Did the punishment meted out vary depending upon the value of the contributions to the tribe or influence within the tribe? Does the fact that we have no recourse to "harsh" penalties effect the applicability of this example of those who have established communities before to our virtual online community? ]

			<p>Hence insinuation, ], and excessive or unwarranted subtlety of writing should be avoided when expressing criticism - particularly negative criticism. This point of etiquette also helps the editor receiving criticism to correctly understand you and respond to your concerns and may particularly aid editors for whom ] or who experience difficulty understanding written English.</p>
	Forgive and Let Go. I like it. I never thought of that! ] 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

			<p>When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward.</p>
	== WI-kee-ket? ==

			<p>Of course criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be ], should assume good faith as described in the ], should not constitute ], and should comply with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, criticism '''must not''' constitute a ''personal attack'' as described in the ] policy. See also the essay ] for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism.</p>}}
	Shouldn't that be WI-kee-kwet, since etiquette is e-ti-kwet?
	] 06:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

			I don't think this point of etiquette is formally stated elsewhere on WP but a review of and mention of the term "scare quotes" appears to indicate that the above notion already has consensus behind it. Also IMO this principle is genuinely good etiquette advice and very much in the spirit of the Misplaced Pages community's ethos. But I wanted to propose this here before attempting to add it to the article, in case my impression of existing consensus is wrong or I'm wording it poorly or missing a significant aspect of it - so please let fly with comments and (explicit) criticisms!
	No, it shouldn't, because it isn't. Etiquette is eh-tee-ket.

			To be clear, I specifically want to add this to the etiquette guideline because I really think it should merely be etiquette advice like the other things mentioned in this page: my intention is not to formally ''prohibit'' or proscribe this form of communication, rather to indicate that communicating in this way is not entirely polite or considerate and hence ought to be avoided in favor of ''explicit'' criticism or ought to be accompanied by explicit criticism. (I would also hope that when editors genuinely trying to follow WP:ETIQ stop to consider how to rephrase their indirect criticism into explicit criticism they might decide to just not be critical at all and achieve goals in other ways, in situations where that's appropriate - but I think that kind of behavior must simply be encouraged because it can't be enforced in any practical way.) --] 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
	Interesting... ]

			Having heard no opposition here for a few days I'm going to be bold and add the section, but of course feel free to make rewrites or make any other changes to improve it. --] 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
	== Adopt Non-Violent Communication Principles? ==

			== Proposal to remove off-topic material ==
	I am a new user and feel excited by discovering the self-organizing principles under which this community runs. It meets my need for hope that in a world where domination structures are part of all levels of organizing we can experiment with other forms of organizing and create more life-serving and peaceful systems on this planet.
			It is a fairly common mistake among people new to editing Misplaced Pages to use talk pages for general requests for information on the subject of an article or project page, rather than for discussing proposed changes to the article or project page. In the case of the Etiquette page at least the following sections are general requests for information (not always even on the subject of Etiquette):
			*Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?
			*Getting my wikiquette questions answered
			*Question about red links
			*Question
			*Unhelpful merger proposals
			Also it is not entirely clear to me that the following sections are proposing edits to the project page:
			*Why does this policy protect the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls)
			*I think.
			Furthermore, all but one of these sections has been dormant for over a year, most for several years. My own preference in such a case would be to delete the sections, as being out of place and unneeded, but I know that there are many Misplaced Pages editors who think that past discussions should not be completely deleted, no matter how inappropriate they may be, so I would settle for archiving them. Any opinions? ] (]) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

			:I generally feel it's only necessary to delete posts that have no plausible connection to the subject (i.e., the guideline and/or the general subject of etiquette). Tell you what: I'll just archive everything from before 2009, except for the "Register an account" thread, since it is active.--] (]) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
	Reading the dispute around Darwin-Lincoln and the wide use of judgment and name-calling in that process, it occurred to me that the principles of Non-Violent Communication (as developed by Marshall Rosenberg) may be very helpful for this community. It suggests to approach others from a consciousness of oneness (i.e. seeing the humanity in anyone, even a person that may be resorting to strategies one doesn't endorse at a given point in time) and empathy (i.e. looking to connect to the humanity / what's alive in the other person). It also proposes a process of communication that facilitates that kind of human connection:

			:{{done}}. Howzat?--] (]) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
	1) Make specific observations (rather than generalizations or judgments), e.g. 'you have changed this 37 times' versus 'you have stubbornly changed this 37 times', 'you have twice called me an x and y' rather than 'you behave like an insulting bastard'...

			::OK. Personally I feel that leaving in posts that shouldn't really be there sets a wrong example to people new to Misplaced Pages, and my own preference would, as I said above, be to delete them. However, archiving them deals with that problem. ] (]) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
	2) State how you feel (rather than confuse feelings and thoughts or attribute feelings to others), e.g. I feel sad and confused, rather than 'I feel abused' (attributes responsibility for own feelings to others), 'I feel you're wrong' also isn't a feeling

			:::I agree that if they're totally off-topic, they can be nuked. But if there's any indication whatsoever that the poster is making a comment in response to something on the article page or project page, it's best to leave it in place. IMO.--] (]) 08:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
	3) State your need (versus your strategy) to help yourself and the other side understand what you are looking to achieve and help you empathically connect as human beings, e.g. I have a need for fairness, inclusion, empathy, ... while 'I really need to have this listed' is a strategy to get a need met, not a need as such (a need is free from reference to a specific person or action), e.g. in the mentioned conflict: 'I have a real need for play, you deleting my reference to the coincidence of birthdays makes me sad that I cannot meet that need by sharing these facts I find interesting'

			== BLP ==
	4) Make requests (rather than demands), e.g. in the given case it could have read 'I really understand your need for order and clarity around what information is essential and important. To allow for more playfulness and creativity with the content shared on Misplaced Pages I suggest we create a 'Random Add-Ons' category for any content that users need to click on to see but that are less constrained by the considerations of how essential or relevant the information is. I would enjoy hearing your reactions or other suggestions for how I could have my need for play and inclusion met.'
			While meditating on the true difference of processing between ] and the others articles and why the others politics are applied more striclty in those cases. It became obvious for me that the true root of this was here in WP:ETIQ. While it's also obvious why this page is axed toward others wikipedians, there is no raisonnable reason why we should act disrespectfully toward anybody. I'm wondering if we could find a way to tell it on that page, just briefly. --] (]) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

			== why are we using the {{tl\|cquote}} template for the motto? ==
	Part of the beauty is that even if the other side doesn't follow this process, you can always 'listen for' the actual needs that are alive underneath the judgment, demands or whatever behavior may be occurring that you do not find life-serving.
			Why do "civility, maturity, responsibility" appear in {{tl\|cquote}}s at the top of the page? The quotation marks make it sound like we're quoting something. But the words maturity and responsibility (or variations thereof) don't even appear anywhere else on the page. And it's not a quotation of anything.

			Can't we render it ... like ... any other way? ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	These methods are being applied in the most difficult conflict situations (civil war, street gangs, ...) to mediate and educate as well as in healing work with victims and perpretators of severe crime. They also are used in schools, prisons and other institutions to help make these systems more life-serving. The energy and consciousness this body of work comes from strikes me as very compatible with that of the creators and (many) participants in this community.

			:I quite agree. The quotes seem to be just a way of emphasising the words, which is not a good use of quotes. There are various other ways that could be used for the purpose if there should be consensus in favour of doing so (e.g. a box, bigger font,...). However, I don't see any good reason of emphasising them; they are quite prominent enough at the top of the page anyway. In the meanwhile the quotes have now been removed. Actually I personally don't see the need for the motto at the top of the page at all. It was introduced in June 2008 without discussion by a user who has since left Misplaced Pages, and so can't be asked about his reasons. ] (]) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
	I would welcome comments from others and help as to in which areas of policy these principles may be most helpful (I can think of general discussion, etiquette, mediation and dispute resolution).

			== ok ==
	One could also write an article about Non-Violent Communication or versions of it for communication, peace-building, mediation etc.
			I don't dare edit a guideline page so I'm posting here.... the link to ] should probably not be linked to from ] considering the notice on top of ]. Right? :)

	] 14:07, 24 ~~March~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		] (]) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
			:Quite true. ("The notice on top of Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_attention" is the statement that the page is now inactive, and retained only for historical reference.) I have now removed the link. ] (]) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	== ~~re:~~ ~~interweaving~~ ~~comments~~ ==		== Any reason to do so? ==
			Is there even '''any''' reason not to do so? <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">]</span> <small>(] • ])</small> - 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{quote\|"Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), '''''unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so'''''".}}

			:LOL, I think the statement is just to add humor to this page, why can't we have a not strictly encyclopaedic page for once eh? but I see your point. ;) ] (]) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
	I just added this text to the section on Talk Page etiquette in response to a recent incident where the interweaving made the discussion much harder to follow. In my opinion, interweaving and point-by-point rebuttals are generally bad because they tend to make an already tense discussion even more adversarial. I remember reading this piece of advice long ago but couldn't find again when someone asked me about it. After reviewing a number of pages, it seems appropriate on this page. Please edit or correct it (or point me to the right page if there's a better place for it). Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
	<blockquote>Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.</blockquote>

			==Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts==
	:Comments should not be unduly long (policy, somewhere). ] 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			Shouldn't mention of ] be up top for people who run into this page when having problems they might want to get advice on? THanks. ] (]) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
	:Comments should generally tackle one thing, one point, one aspect, even if the commentator will wish to comment on several aspects. Not doing that damages threading.] 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Good idea. Link now added. ] (]) 11:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Exceptionally, when a long, possibly rambling, multi=point comment covers sufficient ground that putting a response at the end would not clerly associate it with a specific point in the mass, thus not elucidating the meaning well, interleaving a comment may be the least bad solution. ] 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Long commments which excite in readers the wish to make a response immediately after some line in the middle of them are highly likely to be bad comments, involving (what is at least seen by some users as) lies or other personal attacks. It is better not to make such comments. If such comments are made, it may be the least bad thing to do to accept that a short comment placed adjacent to them is not an unreasonable response, although reversion, refactoring of the personal attack, or administrative deletion of the whole comment might be better. ] 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:When making a set of comments which might reasonably produce responses individually to some, and especially if you do not mind or actively invite such detailed responses, it is sensible to sign each section. ] 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Like this. 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

			==Thanks to Everyone==
	I propose this subpoint be added:
			If this is not appropriate, then you have permission to remove it!
	:If you do interweave your comments, you should duplicate the signature of the person you are responding to at the end of each section that you are splitting, and sign each sub-response you make individually, so that it remains clear who is saying what.
			I can't post a thanks on everyone's user page, but thank you to anyone who contributed to the Misplaced Pages: articles!
			] (]) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
			:Sounds pretty appropriate to me! Good to see a bit of ] every now and again. :-) ] (formerly ]) <sup>]</sup> 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

			== Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent ==
	–]<sup>]</sup><sub> 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
			I would say that I am a middling-experience editor with approaching a 1000 edits. For my first few years I worked on non-contentious articles where "gentlemanly conduct" was all that was needed to work on articles. Then I had the misfortune to get involved in a couple of controversial articles. ''This topic does not directly relate to these'', but to a issue that I can across in my editing on them. The more experienced editors would often cite ], ], etc. as a brief explanation to overwrite or undo an edit, and also resort to such shorthand in attempts to discuss the issues. So my response here was to read and understand all of the frequently cited policies and guidelines, so that I could respond using an informed and evidence based argument.

			Now I have a different problem (I have seen dialogue where other editors experienced this also). My knowledge of policies and procedures is fresh whilst some the editors sometimes work on stale and wrong recollections. When I point out that ''their'' edit fails ] because the relevant section says '''''X''''', or that ] doesn't support their claimed position what it actually says is '''''Y''''', they often dismiss the question, decline to respond or simply reiterate their first response. This sort of attitude makes it impossible to have a negotiated discussion towards consensus. Yet the very first section of ] includes the statements
	== Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had ==
			* Do not ignore questions.
			* If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
			* Concede a point when you have no response to it, ...
			So could we add another shortcut WP:ANSWERQ or something similar so that we can easily remind editors that this conduct is a basic requirement of Misplaced Pages ettiquete. -- ] (]) 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

			== Signing and dating posts ==
	I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. ] - he represents himself as ]. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. ] 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			Is that really wikiquette? ''']''' '']'' ] <small> ] </small> 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
			:I would think so. If you don't sign your posts you force other people (the ones who even realize your comment isn't part of someone else's) to go rummaging through the page history to figure out who said it. But if someone didn't do it I can't think of any really good reason to try to make them do it (insofar as anyone can even be made to do anything on Misplaced Pages) so it seems like it's a matter of etiquette. --] 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

			== ego massages ==
	:I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			The following seems like a dubious responsibility to place on editors: talk pages are said to be "a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos." I'm inclined to say that ]. Talk pages may be a good place to offer encouragement and tips to newcomers whose still-shaky skills have been displayed in the article space, but the encyclopedia is surely better off if we leave our egos at the log-in door. Ego only gets in the way of ] and examining the scholarship dispassionately. Seems odd to hallow damaged egos with a guideline saying they must be nurtured like fragile chicks. ] (]) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

			:It does not seem to me that this is a responsibility placed on editors, it's rather saying that if someone is being an obstinate idiot the talk page is the place to kiss their ass with etiquette and validation (if you want to deal with their obstinacy in that way.) Note that the next bullet point says ''"if your ego is easily damaged, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you."'' --] 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
	:: Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!
	:: Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)
	:: Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!
	:: ] 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

			==Notice==
	==Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?==
			Evidently, there is a proposed new process board for ] or ] issues, which I stumbled upon by following links at this guideline this morning. I don't see that this has been widely publicized and felt it might be of interest to those who monitor this guidelines. Please see ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
	Editor X accuses on an article's talk page another editor of being a sockpuppet for the purposes of violating 3-RR. Is Editor X violating any policy by making the accusation on the article's talk page? ] 01:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
			:I've marked it as failed, as there appears to be no chance of this being approved (no support, strong opposition, bemusement at the reason for this). ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>] 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
	:Also, consider that the accused editor's alleged socketpuppet has already been user checked and the results determined there was no connection between the two.] 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::A user check only shows that it's not the same IP. My home IP is completely different from my work IP. I could easily run two accounts that way. The accusation to which Drogo refers is about an editor who has been shown twice (once by check user, and once by accidentally signing as one user while he was logged on as another) to have used puppets. He had been denying it beforehand, and has been denying it ever since. One was his wife, he claims, and the other was a friend that he was introducing to Misplaced Pages. In both cases, they started their wiki-life by reverting to his version. Finally, the editor who was recently accused of being a puppet of this user has 32 article edits, 30 of which are reverts to the alleged puppetmaster's version. All his talk page edits are in support of this user. He follows him to different pages to support him and vote for what he wants. There is absolutely no doubt that he is at Misplaced Pages for one purpose only, whether he is an individual person or not. ] ] 06:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I know this editor in question and there are some more relevant facts. If this user were being tricky and somehow knew a way to spoof his IP address, then why did the other editors who he didn't want a connection to me to be known to him, get exposed by a user check--while at the same time these other alleged puppets proved to show no connection at all? Logically, he would not use two methods at the same time and if they were all his socks; they would have all been discovered at the same time, along with my his alleged wife, and his friend.
	:::Also, we look at the timing of when he and his alleged socketpuppets edit, their edits do not always come to his aid, nor do they edit at the same time that he would need them--also they have edited at the same time that he has edited, proving that it could not be the same person using different locations. Otherwise, how does he go back and forth from home to work and home again all at about the same time--unless his work is literally across the street from his home? Also, does he have a dozen different work locations? All these users in question were userchecked and showed no connection among themselves either. There are at least a dozen users who have been alleged to be his socketpuppet; it seem that anyone who supports him seems to be userchecked. And, with some, even after being userchecked, the allegations do not stop for this particular editor who makes the accusations. And, its stated as a fact, with no room for good faith or benefit of the doubt, in effect insulting several editors who may be totally innocent.
	:::The question is, when should it be dropped? The only logical possiblity given the facts that are known is that he is innocent and there are other users who do support his POV but don't edit much otherwise, or he just have a dozen friends that he calls and uses them as his meatpuppets. It seems to me one concusion is based on good faith assumptions and the other isn't. In anycase, bring up this controvery on article talk pages is the wrong place as its distruptive.] 07:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Highest airport in the world ==
	I read the comments above very carefully. Such issues appear to me rather "difficult" to understand. I feel I have to learn a lot! --] 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
			San Rafael is still the highest airport in the world: How some one can remove it and replace it with an airport that is 60 meters lower in elevation is not reasonable. The standards are not the highest most commercial, most passenger, it is simply the highest airport in the world.
			San Rafael has been a certified public use airport since 1981 and is service each week by ATSA a Peruvian airline.
			Yes, a new airport when, finished will be higher, but presently San Rafael is the highest airport in the world and the Bangda airport is not.
			Dlwargi] (]) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
			:Um... Is this somehow relevant to the Etiquette page? ] (]) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

	== ~~Policy?~~ ==		== Please Undelete page ==
			] (]) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Please undelete page of Adya Prasad Pandey as he is one of senior Economists in India as i have seen many other Indian Economists page in the wikipedia which is not having much backed references but are there in site As Adya Prasad Pandey is Recently appointed As an Expert Member by University Grant Commission which is Premiere body for Higher Education in India working Under Governement of India As the page is might be deleted due to one of my friend as he may be done some mistakes so in the case undelete it so that i can handle the situation . I have read your page as also appreciate your work on wikipedia so thinking that you help in this case if you are having sugession you are most welcome
			Thank you
			Rajesh

			== Poorly written ==
	I notice that ] changed this page from a guideline to official policy (); where is the discussion about this (very significant) change? It may have stemmed from a question to the help desk () but that doesn't seem like consensus to me.] 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
			I take pride in violating this guideline by calling some of it not only poorly written, but outright nonsense. Giving "poorly written" as example of verboten phrase is wholly unproductive for direct communication. Do you want editors to use euphemisms instead? Just have a shower of real-world incivility at ANI , which still goes completely unsanctioned, and especially stop copying stuff from here to WP:NPA. ] (]) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

			In fact this whole guideline is a giant collection of "recipes" without any discernible logic in their organization. I guess it's just one more outlet for the civility legislators that Misplaced Pages seems to have too many of. ] (]) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
			:Yes, it is pretty bad. Starting looking for "floss your teeth." Shall we take a crack at trimming it down into something that moves away from ].] (])
			:: Or maybe "avoid TLDR" as last entry in the list would be epic justice? ] (]) 06:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

			::The following to start with could be trimmed, made clearer, its rather wordy, it is fine to have as a reminder. Might it be simpler to just say "Remember some comments may contain irony"? or at least something a bit shorter than this:
			::: ''"Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean."''] (]) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
			:I'm afraid that I completely disagree with the original poster – I strongly believe that using the word "poor" to describe another Wikipedian's writing is a great example of very bad etiquette. Now, I'm all in favour of another editor altering something that I've written, or offering ways in which it could be improved – that is ], after all. And I'm not proposing using "euphemisms", but there are dozens of suggestions that could be made that are away from the "This sucks" end of the criticism spectrum. "This needs improvement" or "I found this part confusing" or "This conflicts with the manual of style" or "Some of the spelling is incorrect" or "More sources are needed" or "The grammar in this section needs changing" are some of the many, many things that could be used that are considerably less likely to make another editor defensive, or even decide to leave Misplaced Pages altogether. ] (] \| ]) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

			== Is cussing in discussion on ANI regarded as civil behavior? ==
			Please clarify in the text of the page. While discussing an issue if I use profanity will it be, should it be considered as a civil behavior? If not, what should be the remedy? There is an ] thread and there one editor is repeatedly using the vitriolic f-bomb. I personally don't find it entertaining. One admin blocked him in good faith to cool him down, others came in and disapproved of that block. <p>What is the solution to such behavior? Should we go to user conduct notice board every-time a user uses profanity (as a sign of deep disrespect) while talking to an admin? ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

			== What to do if it IS personal ==
			:"Argue facts, not personalities."

			I get that. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is generating good content for readers, not social activity. The focus should be on the content, not each other.

			But what do you do if a previous disagreement follows you on to other edits you make? I think it's called Wikihounding? All I know is that I'm an IP now because with my previous username, a fellow editor basically tracked my contributions and challenged every one of them. Sorry for not being specific and naming names but this happened over a year ago and I'd just like to put the ordeal to rest (not dredge it up again).

			Why I mention it here is that sometimes the facts or content are not the point, they are just a hammer being used to hit another user over the head. What if, for some people, it has become personal? All of the noticeboards I've seen are about resolutions of disputes over content, not harassment. Where should I have gone to resolve this situation when it happened? ] (]) 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

			:Yes, it is called ], and no, it is not acceptable to harass users. There's info ] on dealing with it, and ] is probably where you should've gone. — ] ] 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			== Future of WP:EQ ==

			] was originally a policy, but was recast as a guideline in 2005. The explanation for that decision appears to have been lost, but the guideline's status was confirmed in 2006, as shown below.
			===2005 change===
			I just changed the notice from "policy" to "guideline". For my rational, see ]. ] 05:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
			===2006 discussion===
			==== Policy? ====
			I notice that ] changed this page from a guideline to official policy (); where is the discussion about this (very significant) change? It may have stemmed from a question to the help desk () but that doesn't seem like consensus to me.] 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:ComSpex is new as of March 2006 and I don't see any evidence that this page went through any discussion or policy-proposal procedures. So I figure they were just ], and I've changed it back. — ] ] 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)		:ComSpex is new as of March 2006 and I don't see any evidence that this page went through any discussion or policy-proposal procedures. So I figure they were just ], and I've changed it back. — ] ] 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

			This is universal etiquette. I will show this to my kin ] (]) 04:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
	== Alternate, but equally valid spellings? ==

			===Future (threaded discussion)===
			] seems redundant, and might be better suited as an essay in its current form. Due to the heated etiquette-related discussion happening at the ], I'd rather not debate ] at the present time, but I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for shortening ]. It mainly discusses ], the ], ] pages, and not biting the ] and might function well as a collection of nutshell summaries of the relevant policies and guidelines. The current miss-mash of bullet points and prose is lengthy and not particularly well formatted. ] (]) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
			:I have plans to shorten the tons of bulletpoints.] (]) 17:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
			:Proposal:
			{{talkquote\|
			* ]. Misplaced Pages has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
			* Remember ]: Treat others as you would have them treat you—even if they are new. We were all new once.
			* Be polite.
			* Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
			* ] work towards agreement.
			* ]
			* Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.
			* Do not ignore reasonable questions.
			* If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
			* Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on ].
			* Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be ''more'' civil, not less. That way at least you are not moving towards open conflict and name-calling; by your own action you are actively doing something about it. Try to treat others with dignity—they are people as well.
			* Do not hesitate to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone (e.g., "I feel that you have been sarcastic above, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue").
			* Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.
			* ]
			* Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
			* Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
			* Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
			* Help mediate disagreements between others.
			* Take it slowly. If you are angry, spend time away from Misplaced Pages instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You may find that someone else made the desired change or comment for you. If you think mediation is needed, enlist someone. Find another Misplaced Pages article to distract yourself—there are {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on English Misplaced Pages. Take up a ], lend your much-needed services at ], or ].
			* Request a list of other articles to work on, provided by ].
			* Remember ].
			* Review the list of ].
			* Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the ] except where exemptions apply.
			* When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an ].
			* Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, ] your posts to ] (not articles).
			* Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.
			\|2=Forbidden User
			}}
			] (]) 17:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
			===Demotion (threaded discussion)===
			With the aforementioned RfC at ] having ended, I am now proposing that ] be ] to a ]. As I mentioned before, ] mainly discusses ], the ], ] pages, and not biting the ]. It seems redundant to mark ] as a guideline. ] (]) 16:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
			:Guidelines tell people how to put policies into action. This page does that. For that reason, I see nothing good coming from demoting it. It serves the exact purpose of a guideline. --]''''']''''' 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

			== WP:FRIENDLY ==

			I've posted a new essay, ], which is based off of the WMF IdeaLab's friendly space policy. I would consider it a supplement to this guideline. I ''would'' in time like to see Misplaced Pages adopt a friendly space policy resembling this, but for now we have the essay. Comments and suggestions are welcome. ] (]) 06:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

			== ] ==

			The WMF is on its way to impose a ] on all projects, obviously done by ], the people that managed ] so gloriously. Looks for me like some kind of retroactive justification process for their botching of that and ] and such. Grüße vom ] <sup> (])</sup> 17:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

			== Reverting somebody else's talk page ==

			Is it ''ever'' acceptable behavior online to revert a message left by a Wikipedian on a third Wikipedian's talk page? I was certain it was in '']'', but I can't seem to locate the page. If it is acceptable, what extreme and emergent circumstances would require such rude behavior? ] (]) 21:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
			:I say it's acceptable when done to remove abuse or vandalism. ] (]) 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

			== Apologize vs. Apologise ==

			Are we using American English or British English? I see both cases being used.

			″Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.″
			″Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.″

			--] (]) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
	Can we have a rule that you should not change the spelling of a word to another equally valid spelling please? I feel that it is important to preserve the article as the author intended in this case and I don't see the merit of changing a word that was already spelt correctly. ] 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

			== Paragraph about labeling misleading? ==
	:There's some guidance on this in the ], though it's more specifically for American and British English variations. Essentially the rule is don't change it unless the subject is particularly American or particularly English and the current variants don't match. Otherwise, use consistent AmE or BrE spellings according to the first variant word edited into the article that is one or the other. — ] ] 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

			A paragraph under ] says:
	::So can I revert ] then? I have already reverted it and the said person has just repeated the change. I would like something added to this Etiquette page about it. ] 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			"Do not label or ] people or their edits.
			*Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist" or "sexist" make people defensive. "

			While I agree in principle, I find the phrasing misleading.
	:::Definitely. And it's not a matter of etiquette, it's a matter of following our style guide. The most obvious part being the section ('']'') that says the Arbitration Committee has ruled that it's inappropriate to change a valid spelling from one style to another without a good reason. It's an anon, and they likely don't understand our policies. So yes, revert at will for this kind of spelling "correction". — ] ] 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			Misleading in sofar, because the refered to ] lists under ''What is considered to be a personal attack?'':
			"*Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, "

			So I would propose, in order to reflect what ] says, to rephrase the paragraph in question.
	== Getting my wikiquette questions answered ==
	Where does one go to ask specific questions about community etiquette? (In this case, "Is it OK to correct the spelling on someone else's User Page, or should I email them, or should I put a notice on their talk page?" The editor in question has made other spelling mistakes, so I don't think it is intentional.)] 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've seen similar questions asked at the Village pump (] for example) so you could ask there; personally I just drop people a note on their talk page and leave them to change it (or not) themselves. ] 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

			E.g.:"While its valid to criticize text as for example ''racist'' or ''sexist'', such labeling though can make people defensive. ..." ] (]) 03:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
	==Question about red links==
	This is a question for any experienced wiki editor. Is it considered "bad form" to start inserting a large number of red links into an existing article? Someone did that to one of the Misplaced Pages articles on my watchlist, and I'd like to revert most of the red links (since I feel most of them are links to articles no one's going to create any time soon). But I would like someone's opinion about the proper etiquette. Are lots of red links a bad thing? I find them annoying, personally. Sorry if this question has already been asked!--] 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

			== Rough tone (e.g. use of "ego") & Misplaced Pages inclusiveness ==
	:A lot of links, period, is considered bad form. Links in an article should always be relevant to the article (so linking to a passing mention of ] in an article about ]s shouldn't be done). Excessive redlinks usually indicates that most of the links aren't likely to ever be articles, or are linking to the wrong place anyway. The cases where many redlinks are actually legitimate are rare enough, so probably in this case you can just revert the lot. If any are directly relevant to the article, though, see if they can't be salvaged by finding the correct blue link, and any that are ''really'' topical yet still red, consider leaving in. — ] ] 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			The article uses ''ego'' as a concept to explain the issue at hand.

			While I understand what it tries to highlight I think the tone is scaring editors off, particularly editors who allready face outside-world discrimination or are not established editors.
	Thanks for answering the question. I just noticed the note at the top of this page that says "Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally" so sorry for ''my'' bad etiquette!--] 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

			E.g.:"If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you."
	:Oop, you're right. I missed that too. The ] is probably the place for it. — ] ] 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

			The tone in such examples sounds like:"If you dont have the balls to be scrutinized, then Misplaced Pages will not want you."
	== Why does this policy protects the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls) ==

			The tone should in my opinion be more like:
	As per this official policy, I cannot denounce a user who is obviously making systematic POV and Consensus violations of being/acting "racist", "sexist" or having a "nazi" ideology. Why? It's obvious that such violations of NPOV should be denounced and fought in the benefit of Misplaced Pages.
			"Misplaced Pages lives from being scrutinized, that said being scrutinized, or rather ones edits, is a tough thing to get into. Misplaced Pages tries to invite users to edit as much as scrutinize. So in order to accomodate both things, not wanting to scare editors off, but also enable quality scrutinizing, editors should take care of those two basic needs and create a conduct between each other that accomodates the needs of editors as humans, and particularly underrepresented voices, as well as the crucial and at times heavily critical scrutinizing."

			PS: Thank you all for working on Misplaced Pages as a communal project. ] (]) 04:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
	In brief, I can't be honest and direct. I can't call things by their name. That's hypocrisy and may protect the worst and most sophisticated infractors of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

			== Indirect criticism example please ==
	I suggest that the text is rewritten in a way that when something is blatantly true cannot constitute a violation of this policy.
			I read ] in its entirety and could not for the life of me think of a single situation or encounter or conversation to which it would apply. Could we have at least one example of what is meant by "indirect criticism" to clarify what exactly is being disapproved there? – ] ] 19:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

			== '''Nominate for Protected Status?''' ==
	I also suggest to initiate a guideline on Honesty. We can't be assambleary and nonviolent if we are hypocritical. We must talk things by their names and be able to do so when it's clearly needed. --] 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

			Hi! This article seems like a good candidate for protection. Many Wikipedians treat this article as a semi-official social policy, and it's one of the first places where brand-new Wikipedians learn about our culture, and how to act in our community. I believe that it should remain fluid, in order to reflect how our community's etiquette may change over time, but I believe that some measure should be taken to preserve it as well. ^-^
	References for your "enjoyement" (if you are able to enjoy such things):
			] (]) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
	*Article ]
	*]
	Of course the vandal in question has been spamming my user page - and others - with threats of reports and so on and never ever denied my accusations - that anyhow are patent.
	--] 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:07, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Etiquette page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Project page renamed from Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette -St|eve 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had

I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 - he represents himself as The Invisible Anon. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. Midgley 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Misplaced Pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!

Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)

Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!

Kim Bruning 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

I strongly disagree (but I'm admittedly biased). A signature is intended to uniquely identify a user, not as a "badge of status" or a "technical measure". Many users have signatures that are not equivalent to their account name; changes have been forced only where disruption and impersonation were involved. As far as I can tell, "The Invisible Anon" linked his signature to his correct user/talk page (which your example above does *not* correctly indicate). Finally, even if you think there is a real justification for this guideline, it should be included at WP:SIG, not here. – 74 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this went unchallenged for so long. It's totally wrong. First of all, I have no reason to believe it's an "etiquette" issue. Second, if it's wrong for anons, it's wrong for registered users too. I've seen plenty of sigs that use names (or symbols, etc.) different from what the username is. There's absolutely no reason to act prejudicially toward anons on this one, and offhand I don't see a reason to blanket disallow it for registered users either.--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Means of addressing violations of WP:EQ

WP:EQ states that a user should (1) keep biases in check and (2) act to improve wikipedia articles.

If these two guidelines are violated, what is the recourse? For instance, if an editor goes systematically through articles putting fact tags on pro-homosexual statements, or deletes them, but never contributes to articles, and appears to never make good-faith attempts to find sources to support and improve articles, that author is clearly failing to keep biases in check, and is motivated more by an agenda than an interest to improve articles. Some may argue that this strategy, in the end, improves articles. Maybe that's true, but it doesn't deny the fact that the WP:EQ principles are being violated.

In these cases, what is the proper recourse? Should individual edits, which are in themselves reasonable but on the whole clearly violations, be reverted? That seems likely to cause an edit war. Otherwise, what is the procedure? --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits by 71.155.232.61

On 1 January 2009 a string of 8 edits were made by an anonymous editor using IP address 71.155.232.61. The worst of these edits were false ("The system is based on the presumption that a popular position is a correct position") and the least bad were simply not on the topic of etiquette ("Write succinctly. Omit needless words.") Some of these edits have already been reverted, the rest I am reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful merger proposals

It is a nuisance that Misplaced Pages readers propose mergers of articles or lemmata, who definitively do not have the lingual capability of a native speaker in the repective language nor of any expertise in the topic. Who on Earth has set the idea that an encyclopedic database will grow on mergers? Could all those who like to find options for mergers think about the possibility that there are other views but one of two? Anyone who proposes mergers should be willing to contribute to additional stuff, but not just to save server capacity. Any objections that I might understand?Wireless friend (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a point of etiquette: "Avoid indirect criticism"

I propose adding a point of etiquette to this guideline as a subsection of "Misplaced Pages etiquette", probably at the bottom of that section. The text would look something like this:

Avoid indirect criticism
Shortcut
WP:INDCRIT
Avoid use of unexplained scare quotes and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of or critical response to talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to.

Hence insinuation, double entendre, and excessive or unwarranted subtlety of writing should be avoided when expressing criticism - particularly negative criticism. This point of etiquette also helps the editor receiving criticism to correctly understand you and respond to your concerns and may particularly aid editors for whom English is a second language or who experience difficulty understanding written English.

When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward.

Of course criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be civil, should assume good faith as described in the relevant guideline, should not constitute biting of newcomers, and should comply with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, criticism must not constitute a personal attack as described in the WP:NPA policy. See also the essay "Avoid personal remarks" for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism.

I don't think this point of etiquette is formally stated elsewhere on WP but a review of project namespace and article talk mention of the term "scare quotes" appears to indicate that the above notion already has consensus behind it. Also IMO this principle is genuinely good etiquette advice and very much in the spirit of the Misplaced Pages community's ethos. But I wanted to propose this here before attempting to add it to the article, in case my impression of existing consensus is wrong or I'm wording it poorly or missing a significant aspect of it - so please let fly with comments and (explicit) criticisms!

To be clear, I specifically want to add this to the etiquette guideline because I really think it should merely be etiquette advice like the other things mentioned in this page: my intention is not to formally prohibit or proscribe this form of communication, rather to indicate that communicating in this way is not entirely polite or considerate and hence ought to be avoided in favor of explicit criticism or ought to be accompanied by explicit criticism. (I would also hope that when editors genuinely trying to follow WP:ETIQ stop to consider how to rephrase their indirect criticism into explicit criticism they might decide to just not be critical at all and achieve goals in other ways, in situations where that's appropriate - but I think that kind of behavior must simply be encouraged because it can't be enforced in any practical way.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no opposition here for a few days I'm going to be bold and add the section, but of course feel free to make rewrites or make any other changes to improve it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove off-topic material

It is a fairly common mistake among people new to editing Misplaced Pages to use talk pages for general requests for information on the subject of an article or project page, rather than for discussing proposed changes to the article or project page. In the case of the Etiquette page at least the following sections are general requests for information (not always even on the subject of Etiquette):

Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?
Getting my wikiquette questions answered
Question about red links
Question
Unhelpful merger proposals

Also it is not entirely clear to me that the following sections are proposing edits to the project page:

Why does this policy protect the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls)
I think.

Furthermore, all but one of these sections has been dormant for over a year, most for several years. My own preference in such a case would be to delete the sections, as being out of place and unneeded, but I know that there are many Misplaced Pages editors who think that past discussions should not be completely deleted, no matter how inappropriate they may be, so I would settle for archiving them. Any opinions? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally feel it's only necessary to delete posts that have no plausible connection to the subject (i.e., the guideline and/or the general subject of etiquette). Tell you what: I'll just archive everything from before 2009, except for the "Register an account" thread, since it is active.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Howzat?--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Personally I feel that leaving in posts that shouldn't really be there sets a wrong example to people new to Misplaced Pages, and my own preference would, as I said above, be to delete them. However, archiving them deals with that problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if they're totally off-topic, they can be nuked. But if there's any indication whatsoever that the poster is making a comment in response to something on the article page or project page, it's best to leave it in place. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP

While meditating on the true difference of processing between WP:BLP and the others articles and why the others politics are applied more striclty in those cases. It became obvious for me that the true root of this was here in WP:ETIQ. While it's also obvious why this page is axed toward others wikipedians, there is no raisonnable reason why we should act disrespectfully toward anybody. I'm wondering if we could find a way to tell it on that page, just briefly. --Iluvalar (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why are we using the {{cquote}} template for the motto?

Why do "civility, maturity, responsibility" appear in {{cquote}}s at the top of the page? The quotation marks make it sound like we're quoting something. But the words maturity and responsibility (or variations thereof) don't even appear anywhere else on the page. And it's not a quotation of anything.

Can't we render it ... like ... any other way? Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. The quotes seem to be just a way of emphasising the words, which is not a good use of quotes. There are various other ways that could be used for the purpose if there should be consensus in favour of doing so (e.g. a box, bigger font,...). However, I don't see any good reason of emphasising them; they are quite prominent enough at the top of the page anyway. In the meanwhile the quotes have now been removed. Actually I personally don't see the need for the motto at the top of the page at all. It was introduced in June 2008 without discussion by a user who has since left Misplaced Pages, and so can't be asked about his reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok

I don't dare edit a guideline page so I'm posting here.... the link to Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_attention should probably not be linked to from WP:Etiquette considering the notice on top of Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_attention. Right? :)

Reliefappearance (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. ("The notice on top of Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_attention" is the statement that the page is now inactive, and retained only for historical reference.) I have now removed the link. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reason to do so?

Is there even any reason not to do so? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so".

LOL, I think the statement is just to add humor to this page, why can't we have a not strictly encyclopaedic page for once eh? but I see your point. ;) Microsofkid (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

Shouldn't mention of Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts be up top for people who run into this page when having problems they might want to get advice on? THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Link now added. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Everyone

If this is not appropriate, then you have permission to remove it! I can't post a thanks on everyone's user page, but thank you to anyone who contributed to the Misplaced Pages: articles! Microsofkid (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty appropriate to me! Good to see a bit of Wikilove every now and again. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent

I would say that I am a middling-experience editor with approaching a 1000 edits. For my first few years I worked on non-contentious articles where "gentlemanly conduct" was all that was needed to work on articles. Then I had the misfortune to get involved in a couple of controversial articles. This topic does not directly relate to these, but to a issue that I can across in my editing on them. The more experienced editors would often cite WP:RS, WP:V, etc. as a brief explanation to overwrite or undo an edit, and also resort to such shorthand in attempts to discuss the issues. So my response here was to read and understand all of the frequently cited policies and guidelines, so that I could respond using an informed and evidence based argument.

Now I have a different problem (I have seen dialogue where other editors experienced this also). My knowledge of policies and procedures is fresh whilst some the editors sometimes work on stale and wrong recollections. When I point out that their edit fails WP:V because the relevant section says X, or that WP:MOS doesn't support their claimed position what it actually says is Y, they often dismiss the question, decline to respond or simply reiterate their first response. This sort of attitude makes it impossible to have a negotiated discussion towards consensus. Yet the very first section of WP:ETIQ includes the statements

Do not ignore questions.
If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
Concede a point when you have no response to it, ...

So could we add another shortcut WP:ANSWERQ or something similar so that we can easily remind editors that this conduct is a basic requirement of Misplaced Pages ettiquete. -- TerryE (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Signing and dating posts

Is that really wikiquette? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. If you don't sign your posts you force other people (the ones who even realize your comment isn't part of someone else's) to go rummaging through the page history to figure out who said it. But if someone didn't do it I can't think of any really good reason to try to make them do it (insofar as anyone can even be made to do anything on Misplaced Pages) so it seems like it's a matter of etiquette. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ego massages

The following seems like a dubious responsibility to place on editors: talk pages are said to be "a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos." I'm inclined to say that "Misplaced Pages is not therapy". Talk pages may be a good place to offer encouragement and tips to newcomers whose still-shaky skills have been displayed in the article space, but the encyclopedia is surely better off if we leave our egos at the log-in door. Ego only gets in the way of WP:NPOV and examining the scholarship dispassionately. Seems odd to hallow damaged egos with a guideline saying they must be nurtured like fragile chicks. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that this is a responsibility placed on editors, it's rather saying that if someone is being an obstinate idiot the talk page is the place to kiss their ass with etiquette and validation (if you want to deal with their obstinacy in that way.) Note that the next bullet point says "if your ego is easily damaged, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Evidently, there is a proposed new process board for WP:Etiquette or WP:AGF issues, which I stumbled upon by following links at this guideline this morning. I don't see that this has been widely publicized and felt it might be of interest to those who monitor this guidelines. Please see Misplaced Pages:Antiquette. --Moonriddengirl 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it as failed, as there appears to be no chance of this being approved (no support, strong opposition, bemusement at the reason for this). Fences&Windows 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Highest airport in the world

San Rafael is still the highest airport in the world: How some one can remove it and replace it with an airport that is 60 meters lower in elevation is not reasonable. The standards are not the highest most commercial, most passenger, it is simply the highest airport in the world. San Rafael has been a certified public use airport since 1981 and is service each week by ATSA a Peruvian airline. Yes, a new airport when, finished will be higher, but presently San Rafael is the highest airport in the world and the Bangda airport is not. DlwargiDlwargi (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... Is this somehow relevant to the Etiquette page? Gekkey Mathews (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Undelete page

Rajeshsng (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Please undelete page of Adya Prasad Pandey as he is one of senior Economists in India as i have seen many other Indian Economists page in the wikipedia which is not having much backed references but are there in site As Adya Prasad Pandey is Recently appointed As an Expert Member by University Grant Commission which is Premiere body for Higher Education in India working Under Governement of India As the page is might be deleted due to one of my friend as he may be done some mistakes so in the case undelete it so that i can handle the situation . I have read your page as also appreciate your work on wikipedia so thinking that you help in this case if you are having sugession you are most welcome Thank you Rajesh

Poorly written

I take pride in violating this guideline by calling some of it not only poorly written, but outright nonsense. Giving "poorly written" as example of verboten phrase is wholly unproductive for direct communication. Do you want editors to use euphemisms instead? Just have a shower of real-world incivility at ANI , which still goes completely unsanctioned, and especially stop copying stuff from here to WP:NPA. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact this whole guideline is a giant collection of "recipes" without any discernible logic in their organization. I guess it's just one more outlet for the civility legislators that Misplaced Pages seems to have too many of. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty bad. Starting looking for "floss your teeth." Shall we take a crack at trimming it down into something that moves away from WP:TLDR.Gerardw (talk)

Or maybe "avoid TLDR" as last entry in the list would be epic justice? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The following to start with could be trimmed, made clearer, its rather wordy, it is fine to have as a reminder. Might it be simpler to just say "Remember some comments may contain irony"? or at least something a bit shorter than this:

"Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean."DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I completely disagree with the original poster – I strongly believe that using the word "poor" to describe another Wikipedian's writing is a great example of very bad etiquette. Now, I'm all in favour of another editor altering something that I've written, or offering ways in which it could be improved – that is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages, after all. And I'm not proposing using "euphemisms", but there are dozens of suggestions that could be made that are away from the "This sucks" end of the criticism spectrum. "This needs improvement" or "I found this part confusing" or "This conflicts with the manual of style" or "Some of the spelling is incorrect" or "More sources are needed" or "The grammar in this section needs changing" are some of the many, many things that could be used that are considerably less likely to make another editor defensive, or even decide to leave Misplaced Pages altogether. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is cussing in discussion on ANI regarded as civil behavior?

Please clarify in the text of the page. While discussing an issue if I use profanity will it be, should it be considered as a civil behavior? If not, what should be the remedy? There is an ANI thread and there one editor is repeatedly using the vitriolic f-bomb. I personally don't find it entertaining. One admin blocked him in good faith to cool him down, others came in and disapproved of that block.

What is the solution to such behavior? Should we go to user conduct notice board every-time a user uses profanity (as a sign of deep disrespect) while talking to an admin? Mr T 06:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do if it IS personal

"Argue facts, not personalities."

I get that. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is generating good content for readers, not social activity. The focus should be on the content, not each other.

But what do you do if a previous disagreement follows you on to other edits you make? I think it's called Wikihounding? All I know is that I'm an IP now because with my previous username, a fellow editor basically tracked my contributions and challenged every one of them. Sorry for not being specific and naming names but this happened over a year ago and I'd just like to put the ordeal to rest (not dredge it up again).

Why I mention it here is that sometimes the facts or content are not the point, they are just a hammer being used to hit another user over the head. What if, for some people, it has become personal? All of the noticeboards I've seen are about resolutions of disputes over content, not harassment. Where should I have gone to resolve this situation when it happened? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is called Wikihounding, and no, it is not acceptable to harass users. There's info here on dealing with it, and WP:ANI is probably where you should've gone. — Reatlas (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Future of WP:EQ

Misplaced Pages: Etiquette was originally a policy, but was recast as a guideline in 2005. The explanation for that decision appears to have been lost, but the guideline's status was confirmed in 2006, as shown below.

2005 change

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

2006 discussion

Policy?

I notice that User:ComSpex changed this page from a guideline to official policy (); where is the discussion about this (very significant) change? It may have stemmed from a question to the help desk () but that doesn't seem like consensus to me.Ziggurat 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ComSpex is new as of March 2006 and I don't see any evidence that this page went through any discussion or policy-proposal procedures. So I figure they were just being bold, and I've changed it back. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is universal etiquette. I will show this to my kin WikiHeat96 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Future (threaded discussion)

WP:EQ seems redundant, and might be better suited as an essay in its current form. Due to the heated etiquette-related discussion happening at the RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity, I'd rather not debate demotion at the present time, but I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for shortening WP:EQ. It mainly discusses WP:CIVILITY, the WP:NPOV, WP:TALK pages, and not biting the WP:NEWBIES and might function well as a collection of nutshell summaries of the relevant policies and guidelines. The current miss-mash of bullet points and prose is lengthy and not particularly well formatted. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have plans to shorten the tons of bulletpoints.Forbidden User (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal:

Assume good faith. Misplaced Pages has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.

Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you—even if they are new. We were all new once.

Be polite.

Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.

Civilly work towards agreement.

Argue facts, not personalities.

Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.

Do not ignore reasonable questions.

If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.

Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil, not less. That way at least you are not moving towards open conflict and name-calling; by your own action you are actively doing something about it. Try to treat others with dignity—they are people as well.

Do not hesitate to politely let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone (e.g., "I feel that you have been sarcastic above, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue").

Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.

Forgive and forget.

Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.

Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.

Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.

Help mediate disagreements between others.

Take it slowly. If you are angry, spend time away from Misplaced Pages instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You may find that someone else made the desired change or comment for you. If you think mediation is needed, enlist someone. Find another Misplaced Pages article to distract yourself—there are 6,930,384 articles on English Misplaced Pages. Take up a Wikiproject, lend your much-needed services at Cleanup, or write a new article.

Request a list of other articles to work on, provided by SuggestBot.

Remember what Misplaced Pages is not.

Review the list of common mistakes.

Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except where exemptions apply.

When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.

Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles).

Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.

— User:Forbidden User

Forbidden User (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Demotion (threaded discussion)

With the aforementioned RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines having ended, I am now proposing that WP:ETIQ be demoted to a WP:WPESSAY. As I mentioned before, WP:ETIQ mainly discusses WP:CIVILITY, the WP:NPOV, WP:TALK pages, and not biting the WP:NEWBIES. It seems redundant to mark WP:ETIQ as a guideline. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines tell people how to put policies into action. This page does that. For that reason, I see nothing good coming from demoting it. It serves the exact purpose of a guideline. --Jayron32 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRIENDLY

I've posted a new essay, Misplaced Pages:Maintaining a friendly space, which is based off of the WMF IdeaLab's friendly space policy. I would consider it a supplement to this guideline. I would in time like to see Misplaced Pages adopt a friendly space policy resembling this, but for now we have the essay. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Harej (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

m:Universal Code of Conduct

The WMF is on its way to impose a Universal Code of Conduct on all projects, obviously done by R&S, the people that managed FRAMBAN so gloriously. Looks for me like some kind of retroactive justification process for their botching of that and Superprotect and such. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ 17:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting somebody else's talk page

Is it ever acceptable behavior online to revert a message left by a Wikipedian on a third Wikipedian's talk page? I was certain it was in Emily Post, but I can't seem to locate the page. If it is acceptable, what extreme and emergent circumstances would require such rude behavior? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I say it's acceptable when done to remove abuse or vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologize vs. Apologise

Are we using American English or British English? I see both cases being used.

″Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.″ ″Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.″

--Techmite (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph about labeling misleading?

A paragraph under How to avoid abuse of talk pages says: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits.

Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist" or "sexist" make people defensive. "

While I agree in principle, I find the phrasing misleading. Misleading in sofar, because the refered to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks lists under What is considered to be a personal attack?: "*Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, "

So I would propose, in order to reflect what Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks says, to rephrase the paragraph in question.

E.g.:"While its valid to criticize text as for example racist or sexist, such labeling though can make people defensive. ..." Nsae Comp (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Rough tone (e.g. use of "ego") & Misplaced Pages inclusiveness

The article uses ego as a concept to explain the issue at hand.

While I understand what it tries to highlight I think the tone is scaring editors off, particularly editors who allready face outside-world discrimination or are not established editors.

E.g.:"If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Misplaced Pages is probably not the place for you."

The tone in such examples sounds like:"If you dont have the balls to be scrutinized, then Misplaced Pages will not want you."

The tone should in my opinion be more like: "Misplaced Pages lives from being scrutinized, that said being scrutinized, or rather ones edits, is a tough thing to get into. Misplaced Pages tries to invite users to edit as much as scrutinize. So in order to accomodate both things, not wanting to scare editors off, but also enable quality scrutinizing, editors should take care of those two basic needs and create a conduct between each other that accomodates the needs of editors as humans, and particularly underrepresented voices, as well as the crucial and at times heavily critical scrutinizing."

PS: Thank you all for working on Misplaced Pages as a communal project. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Indirect criticism example please

I read Misplaced Pages:Etiquette#Avoid indirect criticism in its entirety and could not for the life of me think of a single situation or encounter or conversation to which it would apply. Could we have at least one example of what is meant by "indirect criticism" to clarify what exactly is being disapproved there? – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominate for Protected Status?

Hi! This article seems like a good candidate for protection. Many Wikipedians treat this article as a semi-official social policy, and it's one of the first places where brand-new Wikipedians learn about our culture, and how to act in our community. I believe that it should remain fluid, in order to reflect how our community's etiquette may change over time, but I believe that some measure should be taken to preserve it as well. ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)