Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 19 January 2014

redirected to Wiktionary entry

I softly redirected this shortcut to the relevant Wiktionary entry because where it was redirecting to made this shortcut a violation of policy and guideline as stated in the related MfD for a prior destination (now deleted) and not disputed regarding violations. The recent change in destination to another essay causes the same violations of policy and guideline. That a linker was not confused is irrelevant; what matters is the effect on the reader. Where links to the now-deleted essay or the other humorous essay premised on a semantic reversal are intended to inform anyone besides the linker of nonliteral usage, those links fail unless actually followed, for which there would be little reason or likelihood, thus the linking before the soft redirect was usually violative, which is cured by the soft redirection. In the event that linguistic evidence of a semantic reversal is sourced, the reversal can be added to Wiktionary at the shortcut's new destination. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my link error: 17:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

Since this seems extremely important to you, per your input here and at the related MfD, I'll just delete this shortcut too. There's a limit to what we should do do to keep links on user talkpages blue, and a pointless cross-namespace redirect transcends those limits, IMO. All right? Bishonen | talk 13:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

I think that will result in a bunch of redlinks and reopen the debate, unless the plan includes delinking, which would be a lot of editing as there are about 58 pages linking to this abbreviation, and merely that editing is likely to reopen the debate after users see their talk pages being edited. Otherwise, I wouldn't object at all. Once the link was created and used, after the last debate redirecting to Wiktionary at least allowed or encouraged an appropriate use, namely adding a sourced definition of the sort some editors might believe exists in sources (many idioms legitimately exist without sourcing but Wiktionary requires sourcing and this phrase idiomatically relies on a reversal of meaning that is misleading or false in the contexts in which it was being invoked). If you have a plan for that, that would be fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about reopening the debate. If you insist on soft-redirecting a shortcut that some people formerly liked to use, then I assume you're prepared to defend that action in debate. Obviously those people used it because it linked to a joke that they liked. Redirecting it to Misplaced Pages:WikiSpeak#WADR, as User:Johnuniq did, preserved the joke. As I understand it, you disapprove of that because you think the joke is offensive and the way people used the shortcut was inflammatory, am I right? I can respect that. Indeed, I'm far from wedded to the silly joke. On the contrary, I was starting to dislike it, which was one reason I requested that the original target, Misplaced Pages:Do not say with all due respect, be deleted.

But I don't agree with your wish to preserve the appearance of the links — to keep them blue — by means of a meaningless soft cross-project redirect to Wiktionary. Since nearly all of the links will be in archives by now, I doubt their going red will spark any debate to speak of, though I suppose editing the pages to de-link them might have that effect. (No, I have no plans for de-linking those links; talkpage archives are full of redlinks; no big deal.) But anyway, since obviously there is opposition to my idea of deletion (= you oppose it), I can't speedy this redirect. Instead, I'll re-point it to the previous target, Misplaced Pages:WikiSpeak#WADR. If you revert me, I'll take it to Redirects for discussion. It's not really a needed or useful redirect at all. It was created for the original Misplaced Pages:Do not say with all due respect essay, which no longer exists. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

I believe that was already settled with the deletion of the misleading and policy-violating page. Some editors did like to use it but none of us were allowed to do so. We should not be relitigating when someone wishes to engage in that kind of conduct; once should be enough. I did defend my position already. Informing readers after they have clicked the link does not adequately serve the purpose of informing them of what is meant when the link is supplied; that's important because we usually follow only those links likely to help us and linking "with all due respect" does not appear to add anything the phrase does not already convey explicitly, which is the opposite of the semantic reversal some linking editors intend; if a criticism is meant, it is to be stated clearly to the reader with linking providing clarification (as when we say that a subject is not notable and link to a page on notability). Linking softly to Wiktionary is obviously not meaningless but Wiktionary did not support the reversal this link was meant to support and therefore viewing Wiktionary as a useless destination supports my point. Redirecting to the Wikispeak entry has the same problem as linking to the deleted essay. I'll look over the archiving angle you raise. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What is this all about? Please start a discussion on a noticeboard where a wider section of the community can decide whether all this chat about a redirect is useful. Many of the backroom parts of Misplaced Pages have opinions or humor (and in some, just plain stupidity), and there is no reason to turn this shortcut into a "soft redirect" as if the technical mumbo jumbo somehow justified its existence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to open a discussion elsewhere, if you wish, but we should generally try to work out a local consensus first by addressing a disagreement at the talk page of the page under discussion, i.e., here. No one here has a problem with humor per se. However, whether humorous or not, personal attack is not permitted even it is made in a concealed form, as with this use of the phrase, which is contrary to published dictionary meanings and therefore fails to notify readers of the writer's actual intent while pretending to do so. If anyone feels that the attack should be allowed or that this method of concealing it should make it permissible, the proper step to take is to amend the controlling policy or propose such an amendment at that policy's talk page. I don't plan to do that because the policy is a good idea as it is, but anyone who disagrees can take it there. If we agree on the policy, then what to do with this page consistently with that policy should be addressed here. I think the fundamental issue about this phrase has already been resolved with the discussion on and deletion of the essay, but consensus can change if there is a new ground not previously addressed. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A redirect cannot be a personal attack, and saying "with all due respect" is a long way from being a personal attack. I don't see how it would be possible, but it is conceivable that an editor could post "]" as an attack—in that case, the problem is the editor's post and possibly their attitude if they think a personal attack is a reasonable way of contributing to Misplaced Pages, and a discussion with the editor should occur in order to explain WP:NPA and how their post violates it. Removing the redirect so it cannot be used for a hypothetical personal attack would be like introducing an edit filter that makes it impossible for a comment to contain an expletive in order to ensure harmony and a collaborative community free from personal attacks—a pointless exercise. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying "with all due respect" is not normally a personal attack except in the unsourced sense in which it is used in Misplaced Pages (as euphemistically for 'I think you're talking bollocks'), and it appears that it was used that way, about a third of the time in the beginning, when done by linking to the essay and will probably be done that way again with the new link to Misplaced Pages:WikiSpeak#WADR via WP:WADR, thus making it quantitatively different from the issue with comments. To have to go after every editor who attacks this way instead of going after the tool they generally use that way when that tool has not much other use is much more burdensome than simply making the tool less convenient to use than simply saying the criticism. (I considered indicating in the Wikispeak essay that the phrase can't be used that way because of NPA and that the sense is unsourced, but as it is meant as a humorous essay I left it alone, but then the shortcut should not point there. At least the deleted essay cautioned editors about the risk of linking for the purpose of attacking, and even that turned out not to be protective enough. The Wikispeak essay doesn't seem to have such a caution anywhere.) Because most readers would only follow a link that promises something they're seeking, such as an explanation of a mystery, most readers would not realize they were attacked with that phrase but other editors who are in on the joke would know, and would also know that the attacked editor had not responded, suggesting acquiescence or agreement when no such thing occurred; thus, gaming the system would be a result. Transparency of communication is essential in a community as large as this one. The redirect would be used to facilitate the personal attack and thus has to be structured (as it was for months) for a more appropriate use, such as softly redirecting to Wiktionary or by some equivalent hard-redirecting, one that does not convey an attack mode, at least until a dictionary supports it and, as far as I know, no dictionary does so far. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing that you have written on this topic is accurate or has consensus, and it hard to see why anyone would think that battling over the remnants of a humorous essay that was deleted at the author's request would be useful. Redirecting WP:WADR to a dictionary is about as silly as patching MediaWiki so that whenever the phrase "fuck off" is used the reader sees "may a thousand flowers bloom". If I use WP:WADR in a comment, I don't want some busy-body mucking around with what I wrote—if you don't like my comment, discuss it with me or at a noticeboard, but don't change what I wrote into a misleading puzzle. I guess the next step will be to nominate all the offensive pages for deletion—what a benefit that will be. Many things can be learned at Misplaced Pages, but one of the most important is that the world is a big place, full of people with a different point of view—not everyone has to see everything in accordance with Nick Levinson. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• From the FWIW department: The redirect was never intended to be a personal attack, and I'm not sure I could follow an adult hypothesis which declared that it was. The phrase "with all due respect" has been a common one within the circle of people I've communicated with for many years. User:Bishonen once wrote a humorous, (albeit accurate) explanation of the phrase, and I simply attempted to eliminate a few keystrokes to referencing that writing. Now - having said that, and with the relevant essay no longer available, I honestly don't care what happens to the shortcut. — ChedZILLA 21:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No dispute exists over why the redirect was created and I gladly take your word for it, as you created it. A dispute is over the use of it, and there the intent is among many editors. The adult thing for editors to do is to communicate directly with each other instead of using the redirect or either essay for a hidden attack. The meaning may be common among quite a few people but no dictionary supports it and therefore we should not expect readers to recognize it, even if some do. Many words and phrases acquire reversed meanings but we don't usually assume they apply until they predominate, which it doesn't for this phrase, and assuming good faith means that readers should not ordinarily assume the worst in every communication and trace every link for suspicious meaning. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Nick Levinson: What? "Relitigating"? Have you forgotten that nobody agreed with you in the MfD? (Here's the link to it again.) The reason the target page was deleted wasn't that anybody other than you thought it was "misleading and policy-violating", but purely that I, as the page's creator, requested it. There was no litigation from any other quarter than, again, you. Is it seriously your opinion that indirection of criticism is not "allowed" ("none of us were allowed to do so"), and furthermore that this whole trifle is of huge importance? If you hadn't objected to my proposal to speedy the redirect, it would be gone by now, and people would stop using it. (I expect they already have, but whatever. They certainly would if it was a redlink.) And that would do what harm? It's a useless redirect. (Sorry, Ched, but it's useless now.) Do you really not see my point here, Nick? My first preference by a long shot is that the redirect be deleted, my second that it be directed to Wikispeak. I don't understand your objection to the first, because all you do is address the second. Good luck with getting a consensus here. I'm done. You don't seem to think there's any limit to how many words this issue deserves, but I do. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Redirecting a shortcut to the opposite of what it meant when editors typed it changes the meaning of what they said and is therefore rudely refactoring their comments. It makes as much such as redirecting WP:TLDR from too long, didn't read to Misplaced Pages:Requests for expansion. NE Ent 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What "none of us were allowed to do so" refers to is "use" of "the misleading and policy-violating page" (the deleted essay). I did not say that criticism is not allowed. Criticism is welcome. Personal attack is not allowed. The difference is large and has been made plain many times by many editors relative to many topics and regarding many editors. WP:NPA specifically says that agree with the content - it doesn't always mean that". The statement by editor Johnuniq that "nothing that you have written on this topic is accurate" is wrong, awaits reporting of any specific error on my part, and, absent that report, encompassing everything I've written on the topic is the sort of exaggeration apparently designed to prevent collaboration and consensus, which is not limited to editors on one side of an issue. Johnuniq disagreeing is not the same as everything I've written being wrong. This issue may be a "trifle" to you (Bishonen), but personal attacks tend to drive contributors away (as Montanabw intended when writing of "actually implying that I really do wish you would go away") and that is not trifling, as it harms Misplaced Pages's development and the violating of policy also tends to harm Misplaced Pages's consistency of quality. When you wrote "I don't understand your objection to the first, because all you do is address the second", I did address the first in my first reply and you acknowledged my view in your first reply to that. The issue by editor NE Ent that redireting is a rude refactoring is a good point; but we can't support continued personal attacks and admins often delete explicit attacks from pages and edit summaries because they violate policy, rude as that is to their authors. Blaming me for not suporting a speedy deetion misses the likelihood that, in my opinion, the redirect would have been restored or recreated or a functional equivalent created, as the MfD consensus seems to imply (cf. editor Newyorkbrad's view that if the essay is deleted "someone else might sooner or later write a similar one"), and if deletion of the redirect was a good idea then redirecting it to Wiktionary is just as good a solution, because if anyone ever sources the negative meaning of with all due respect and adds it to Wiktionary the redirect will effectively include that negative meaning along with the usual meanings for the benefit of linkers. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)