| Revision as of 19:42, 12 January 2010 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Personal Attack: suggestions← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:54, 12 January 2010 edit undoFladrif (talk | contribs)6,136 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| ::No, it's not a personal attack, and it is perfectly civil. It is a specific criticism of specific edits, to wit (i) edits to text without having read the source material, which then have the effect of changing the meaning and inaccurately reflecting the source material; (ii) edits to text which substitute disjointed out-of-context quotations for an neutral and accurate summary of the source material, which do nothing whatsoever to improved the accuracy of the summary, and which impair the readability of the text; (iii) edits which take half-a dozen tries to get to where the editor apparently wants to go, eating up valuable bandwidth at Misplaced Pages rather than the editor taking the time to read and preview his or her edits before hitting the "Save Page button. If you can't distinguish between constructive criticism of your edits with personal attacks, you should probably get a dog instead of editing Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | ::No, it's not a personal attack, and it is perfectly civil. It is a specific criticism of specific edits, to wit (i) edits to text without having read the source material, which then have the effect of changing the meaning and inaccurately reflecting the source material; (ii) edits to text which substitute disjointed out-of-context quotations for an neutral and accurate summary of the source material, which do nothing whatsoever to improved the accuracy of the summary, and which impair the readability of the text; (iii) edits which take half-a dozen tries to get to where the editor apparently wants to go, eating up valuable bandwidth at Misplaced Pages rather than the editor taking the time to read and preview his or her edits before hitting the "Save Page button. If you can't distinguish between constructive criticism of your edits with personal attacks, you should probably get a dog instead of editing Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::If I may suggest, the complaint about the editing style (iii) would have been better placed on the editor's talk page, since it was personal to him. As for the other two complaints, I have learned that one way to avoid making these disputes personal is to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible. So instead of asking, "why did you write that" I might ask, "why are we saying this in the article", or "why did we add that poor source". That makes it less confrontational and keeps the focus on the problem. There certainly are many problems with the TM-related articles. Let's focus on being part of the solution. You don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat perhaps an offline conversation might help. <b>] ] </b> 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | :::If I may suggest, the complaint about the editing style (iii) would have been better placed on the editor's talk page, since it was personal to him. As for the other two complaints, I have learned that one way to avoid making these disputes personal is to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible. So instead of asking, "why did you write that" I might ask, "why are we saying this in the article", or "why did we add that poor source". That makes it less confrontational and keeps the focus on the problem. There certainly are many problems with the TM-related articles. Let's focus on being part of the solution. You don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat perhaps an offline conversation might help. <b>] ] </b> 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thank you for the kind offer, but I do not wish to exchange correspondence with other Misplaced Pages editors offline.] (]) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:54, 12 January 2010
Apprentice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
Recognition
| File:WRCBarnstar.png | The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar | |
| For continuously rescuing the Ref list and summarizing Ref codes on the TM and related articles. Good work!} — Kbob • Talk • 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) |
DYK for Moscow International House of Music
|
On November 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moscow International House of Music, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Fred LaBour
|
|
On November 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred LaBour, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal Attack
This is an inappropriate personal attack, please discuss the article in a civil way.WP:NPA If you want to rant, you should probably get yourself a blog.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that remark but I'm not sure which part of it is a personal attack. It's best to simply refactor the part that is offensive and leave the rest. Will Beback talk 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not a personal attack, and it is perfectly civil. It is a specific criticism of specific edits, to wit (i) edits to text without having read the source material, which then have the effect of changing the meaning and inaccurately reflecting the source material; (ii) edits to text which substitute disjointed out-of-context quotations for an neutral and accurate summary of the source material, which do nothing whatsoever to improved the accuracy of the summary, and which impair the readability of the text; (iii) edits which take half-a dozen tries to get to where the editor apparently wants to go, eating up valuable bandwidth at Misplaced Pages rather than the editor taking the time to read and preview his or her edits before hitting the "Save Page button. If you can't distinguish between constructive criticism of your edits with personal attacks, you should probably get a dog instead of editing Misplaced Pages.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, the complaint about the editing style (iii) would have been better placed on the editor's talk page, since it was personal to him. As for the other two complaints, I have learned that one way to avoid making these disputes personal is to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible. So instead of asking, "why did you write that" I might ask, "why are we saying this in the article", or "why did we add that poor source". That makes it less confrontational and keeps the focus on the problem. There certainly are many problems with the TM-related articles. Let's focus on being part of the solution. You don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat perhaps an offline conversation might help. Will Beback talk 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind offer, but I do not wish to exchange correspondence with other Misplaced Pages editors offline.Fladrif (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, the complaint about the editing style (iii) would have been better placed on the editor's talk page, since it was personal to him. As for the other two complaints, I have learned that one way to avoid making these disputes personal is to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible. So instead of asking, "why did you write that" I might ask, "why are we saying this in the article", or "why did we add that poor source". That makes it less confrontational and keeps the focus on the problem. There certainly are many problems with the TM-related articles. Let's focus on being part of the solution. You don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat perhaps an offline conversation might help. Will Beback talk 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not a personal attack, and it is perfectly civil. It is a specific criticism of specific edits, to wit (i) edits to text without having read the source material, which then have the effect of changing the meaning and inaccurately reflecting the source material; (ii) edits to text which substitute disjointed out-of-context quotations for an neutral and accurate summary of the source material, which do nothing whatsoever to improved the accuracy of the summary, and which impair the readability of the text; (iii) edits which take half-a dozen tries to get to where the editor apparently wants to go, eating up valuable bandwidth at Misplaced Pages rather than the editor taking the time to read and preview his or her edits before hitting the "Save Page button. If you can't distinguish between constructive criticism of your edits with personal attacks, you should probably get a dog instead of editing Misplaced Pages.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)