| Revision as of 22:48, 7 October 2008 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,455 edits Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 14 October 2008 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Intelligent design: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::] (]) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ::] (]) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Intelligent design == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 14 October 2008
Due to events largely outside of my control, I have to leave Misplaced Pages. There are people who know what to do if I am to return. When this is done, please e-mail me. If you wish to contact me otherwise, please e-mail me.
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)