Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 29 September 2014

YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Person making up stories in a page

On Monday, July 6, 2014, someone makes up a story that WZJZ is dead forever and given up by the FCC. Proof of evidence: "On June 21, 2014, a gang of women destroyed the transmitter and murded the crew and it got defunct. The station's license was cancelled and the WZJZ call sign assignment was deleted permanently from the FCC database." I copied and pasted the evidence caused by 70.27.98.190 and because of that, and this is true that I didn't do this and if you see on their revision history, I undid what he or she has done. This is a bad thing for Misplaced Pages and needs to be stopped, before more broadcasting pages are effected by this person. Check WZJZ's Facebook and Twitter pages on the day marked June 21, 2014 and you will see nothing about it and it still is being updated. I think he is making this up because he did a typo and how could women be that clever to kill a TV station and make the FCC give it up by force. Besides I still hear it where I live in my car radio sometimes at night. I also have never heard from the FCC that they given up a station to criminals, and that this is made up, besides they are still streaming on iHeartRadio. Would someone please consult this to this person: 70.27.98.190. Thank you and let's not make this happen. We don't want people making up stories that TV and radio stations are off the air forever and make people have heart attacks. Maybe some "Misplaced Pages EXPERTS" could tell him about this.

If you do this, I will thank you Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the IP's sole edit, and warned them on their talk page. That's the right way to handle the situation. There's no need for further action.--{{U|Elvey}} 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDACT clarification

Support/ opposition to this edit? It's been reverted. Edit and revert have deletion summaries. (In addition, I fixed the last section; the indentation didn't make sense, as its also an instruction, like the others.)--{{U|Elvey}} 18:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposed edit changed:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines:

to:

If it becomes necessary to redact your own comments to correct false information or address personal attacks, follow these guidelines when you strike or remove text:

The problem is that WP:TPG#Own comments (WP:REDACT) includes advice for how to handle simple changes to one's own comments and while the formal definition of "redact" may include that operation, common usage of that word refers to the removal of sensitive text, so "redact" obscurs the meaning.

Another issue is that the edit also put a bullet before the final paragraph "Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments..."—that's not correct as the paragraph is separate from the preceding which refers to editing a comment.

What is the purpose of the proposed change? Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some regrets

I have been editing en-wikipedia once in a while but could never do a Phd in en-wiki rule books. Some fellow gentelman wikipedian reverted my edit citing some rule over here. I dont have time and energy to go to some dispute resolution forums and mechanisms. I ended up regretting unjust non flexibilty of en wikipedians.

Mahitgar (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The revert was correct in that quite a lot of off-topic commentary is added to article talk pages and if it weren't removed, people would get enthusiastic and leave more and more stuff. Re the issue, you could try WP:HELPDESK, but that's a pretty difficult technical question, and you need someone with special knowledge. Your question is at this permalink. At the bottom-right corner of the video box is a very small icon showing two rectangles. Clicking that shows the file page which is File:Type in Telugu on Telugu Wikimedia projects.webm, and that shows the author is User:Psubhashish. Perhaps ask them. The generic page is Help:Files, and that points to WP:Creation and usage of media files. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar, Hi. I regret for the removal. But, I would love to help to create a similar video for Marathi if you could help me with the content. Do, let me know here of by mail (subhashishcis-india.org) about what you would like to have in the video. I missed out the part that explains "how to access the help page". You have rightly pointed it. If you have a shortcut for Marathi do include that as well. I will try to show the link on the video itself. Look forward to hearing from you. Best. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you folks please take this discussion some place other than here? It is a good discussion to have, but this is not a good place to have it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of the guidelines whose talk page this is, seems an eminently appropriate topic to discuss here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive template request for text search

At some talk pages, there is a text box so eds can search on key words. I realize there is an index on this page's archives, but what if the keyword is not in a thread title? Would someone please add that function to our archive box? I have a love/hate thing going with those particular templates. Thanks for help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The box here uses an index generated by Legobot (last updated in 2013). There's another box (which name I will look up shortly) which generates a search within subpages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

{{tl{Archive banner}} and {{Search box}} have the relevant search built in. There doesn't seem to be one combined with this {{Archive box collapsable}}. Perhaps more of the features of {{Archive box}} (which does include a search option) could be added to {{Archive box collapsable}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy ping, I hope. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Letter greetings - Current text < > widespread actual practice_widespread_actual_practice-2014-07-24T13:59:00.000Z">

I just noticed the TPG text says

Avoid letter greetings & closings: Discussions are not letter exchanges. "Hello," "Warm regards," and the like are distracting, are a waste of space, and are simply sarcastic when bracketing criticism.

However, my own experience is that LOTS of established editors will say "Hi ____! blah blah blah. Cheers" or variants on that. I have never ever heard this guideline even mentioned, much less in any enforcement proceeding.

Seems to me, this snuck in under the WP:CREEP radar and needs modification or deletion to match widespread community practice. Not a big deal in the scheme of things, of course. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)_widespread_actual_practice"> _widespread_actual_practice">

Guidelines should provide guidance. I did not start this reply with "Hi, thanks for your comment, it was great to hear from you", and I'm not going to finish with "Have a nice day!". The guideline should explain how things are usually done, and usually letter greetings and closings are totally inappropriate. Experienced editors sometimes do things differently because they have a background with the recipient—that's fine, but that is outside the scope of what's possible to say in a guideline. Newbies should be told what is expected. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The text violates WP:GOODFAITH by presuming such greetings to be sarcastic when included with critical comments. While it seems to reflect current practice on talk pages outside of user space, posts on user talk pages often include the so-called "letter greetings & closings", reflecting conventions commonly used in e-mail communications. The quoted bullet point should be deleted. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep -- while it might be reasonable to say greetings which are regarded as uncivil by the person addressed should be removed if there is an objection to them, the language above is quite discordant with actual practice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

New guideline: Use Standard Written English ?

There are discussions currently in progress at WT:AN and another forum about systemic gender bias. An analysis indicates that there is also an issue concerning talk page guidelines. The talk-page problem is that some editors use words that are meant to be humorous in their own variety of English but are insulting in another variety of English. It occurs to me that a new guideline is in order, which should be that in non-user talk pages, that is, pages used for collaboration, editors should be encouraged to use Standard Written English, which is understood throughout the English-speaking portions of the world (in spite of orthographic differences). The use of slang in user pages should be discouraged, because it is likely to be misunderstood across Anglophone cultures.

The specific example in point is the word "cunt". It appears that in Australian English, this term is humorous. It may have a different humorous context in British English. In American English, it is deeply offensive to women and degrades them as sexual objects. On the one hand, Australian men should not be expected to know that the word is deeply offensive to American women. On the other hand, American women should certainly not be expected to know that the word is humorous when used by non-Americans, let alone to avoid being offended by it. The wider problem is that talk pages are cross-cultural, and editors should be advised to use the cross-cultural vocabulary of standard written English. Other slang words, having different meanings in different cultures, have also caused misunderstandings. The solution is to treat pages, which are written, as written English, and use standard written English, which is cross-cultural.

I intend to post a Request for Comments to add a subsection to this guideline to strongly encourage the user of standard written English. Does anyone have any further suggestions for what should be included in the RFC?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Applause for right idea. Concern about inadvertently creating unintended ammunition. If we really apply AGF, then I would like to see equal responsibility placed on

• people who are offended to assume other party had no clue (in other words to lighten up a bit) as those same people put on
• original speaker to get a clue and clean it up

Am interested in reasoning used by any in opposition, since there's probably perspectives I haven't ever thought of. But with what I know now, this seems like a reasonable direction to travel. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis of a bilateral duty on both parties to assume good faith is true in the absence of the proposed guideline. The proposed guideline will change that, and will put the responsibility clearly on the posting party, because standard written English does not have these cross-cultural misunderstandings. I will note that there are a few editors who, more than once, have drawn offense, and this raises the question as to whether they do have a clue and use language that results in cross-cultural misunderstanding anyway. However, the time to make these arguments is in response to the RFC, either supporting or opposing it. Does anyone have any suggestions for what else to put in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How in the world are we supposed to know if something is "standard" english? This isn't french, there is no body that accepts or rejects words. Arguing over whether a particular word is "standard" english would be even less productive than arguing over whether the word's usage is civil... Monty₈₄₅ 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Complete waste of space. You won't even get agreement on what constitutes SWE. And we should celebrate the rich tapestry of life and multiculturalism here, not sanitise it. I would be interested to see how you would enforce this on, say, people from India who frequently struggle to express themselves on Misplaced Pages. I say "would" because if this comes in then I'm gone. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Judge Stewart's opinion applies here. We can't define it, but we know it when we see it. You (Sitush) do express yourself in standard written English. I have seen competency issues with Indians, but not with their use of slang that varies from region to region. The individuals who have used language that is regionally offensive are native English speakers. There is no standard definition of Standard written English, but a native user of English, whether American, Briton, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, or whatever knows it when she sees it, and won't be offended by it. This isn't intended to deal with users of English as a second language (unless they have picked up slang from the country in which they resided or from their teacher). It has to do with native users of English, who may not know that a word is offensive in another variety or culture (or who may know that it is, and may be intentionally pushing). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem difficult to refer people to a dictionary. See eg., . Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So are we using the OED to show that the word is part of standard English as its contained therein, or are we using the OED to argue the word is not standard English, because the OED labels it taboo/slang? Monty₈₄₅ 20:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Taboo,slang": is a pointer to the common understanding that the word is not in the Standard Written. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What about things tagged as "informal" such as admin? Monty₈₄₅ 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about dictionaries that disagree? Brit English usage, for example, differs from US English. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I used Oxford. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that ain't Merriam-Webster & I'm sure that there will be differences because there certainly are differences in usage ... And if a UK court says a word is ok to use then I'm content to call this proposed RfC a load of bollocks ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The differences are not substantive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You are missing my point, sorry. If we have to reach for a dictionary every time we write a message, we'll grind to a halt and we'll have innumerable pathetic, argumentative discussions about which dictionary etc. It will make the innumerable, pathetic discussions about civility pale by comparison. This is civility policing by the back door and it is civility policy of a far more pointed nature. People need to get a life and grow a skin, not be swayed by the righteousness indignation of a few vociferous "let's change the world" activists. Misplaced Pages's function is not to change the world but to provide information. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Most people are familiar with the general use of words even without a dictionary. If there is some question, 'consult a few dictionaries' is no burden, since we consult references all the time. We provide sourced information - not just any information. WP:CIVILITY is not more pointed, the Standard Written proposal just provides guidance in a guideline to consult sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm pleased to read that you consider my usage to be SWE. That means I can carry on using "fuck" and "bollocks" from time to time, both of which are certainly in standard written and verbal usage where I come from and both of which I use on Misplaced Pages. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I would also suggest that it apply to edit summaries as well. As for others having no clue about whether or not something might be offensive... We can't know others' intentions. But we can say, politely, "That term offensive." This completely removes the impossible requirement that one has to prove what another person's intentions were. You say it was offensive; SWE agrees. You ask the person who said it to please redact or reword what they said. If they don't, or if they continue to use that term, they are in breach of civility. The exception, in this case, would be if SWE does not agree that a term is offensive and the community also agrees that it's not offensive. If a person repeatedly accuses another of incivility when neither SWE or the community agrees, there's your possible cause for a boomerang. Again, the key is removing the impossible hurdle of "proving" (which is nearly impossible) what the speaker's intention was.

To put it another way, if I'm at work and I say in a meeting or a memo, "John is a dick," or "Jane is a bitch," and a colleague reminds me that kind of language is against company policy (for whatever reason: the boss doesn't like it, or company lawyers have determined it's a liability) - then I apologize and I don't use it again, unless I'm prepared to be disciplined, perhaps even fired, for doing so. That is NOT censorship, it's how civilized people conduct business. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the umpteen rows concerning civility enforcement. It won't work because one person's incivility is another's acceptability and why should the opinion of the offended person carry more weight than that of the alleged offender. Political correctness is an idiotic, utopian concept and, effectively, that is what is being suggested here. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Your above post implies that people who use that type of language, including specific individuals who used it in the other thread, are not civilized. That is clearly an uncivil position to take, and so by your own standard you should remove it. Monty₈₄₅ 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my experience that bosses are among the most prolific users of words that you, Lightbreather, would seem to find offensive. Perhaps that is because the bosses I deal with don't come from places such as California, which is stereotypically a "right-on" place (although I suspect even there it is far from uncommon). It really doesn't matter where you participate on the web, if you aren't willing to tolerate some stuff that you don't particularly like and/or you lack a thick skin then you are not going to like it. I'd also venture that you won't like reading the dialogue of female characters in Chaucer but I guess that is no longer SWE even though it is still widely taught. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Your analysis of a bilateral duty on both parties to assume good faith is true in the absence of the proposed guideline. The proposed guideline will change that, and will put the responsibility clearly on the posting party, because standard written English does not have these cross-cultural misunderstandings" In that case, I'm opposed. Better, in my opinion, to write a guideline that explains the application of AGF to this issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not the "7 words ..." which are the problem. It is the general tenor of interaction after a person says they do not appreciate certain language. "Standard written English" is not set in stone - it changes almost daily, and trying to pin it down as "correct speech" is a hopeless (IMO) cause. Some people manage to take umbrage at classical references, "fer gosh sake", and there is no explanation why some editors have wildly differing standards depending on whether they agree or disagree with someone as to whether that person has violated any rules of conduct at all. And it generally has no relationship to location of the editors, but rather on how they view the general tenor of discourse. Thus I would suggest:

Avoid taking umbrage where a polite comment stating your personal dislike of a word or phrase would defuse the situation.

Try to use language in general which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If you would find the words jarring in such locations, do not use them on Misplaced Pages.

There can be no list of "banned words" as the context and tenor of communication is paramount rather than specific words. This does not mean that words generally found objectionable in polite discourse should be used however.

Cheers. This is of course only my own opinion after reading the interminable and iterated comments thereon above. Collect (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good start, here is a modified version that emphasizes bilateral requirement to AGF

*Speakers Try to use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Misplaced Pages.

*Listeners If you are offended by someone else's language, first assume good faith and accept the possibility they did not mean to offend. With that in mind, you may ask them politely to change their choice of wording, but do it in a way that tries to build bridges, not blow them up.

*Speakers again If you are asked to change your word choice, first assume good faith and accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. How you respond might be seen as evidence that you want to build the community's power of collaboration - or tear it down.

*Listeners again If you are unsatisfied with the response, try not not escalate the WP:DRAMA at article or user talk pages, but instead make effective use of WP:Dispute resolution

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice suggestions - but I would not try the dichotomy between "speakers" and "listeners" as we are simultaneously both in many cases. Removing that dichotomy yields:

Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Misplaced Pages.

If you are offended by someone else's language, first assume good faith and accept the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording, but avoid any anger in such a post. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive.

If you are unsatisfied with the response, avoid drama and seek to use dispute resolution processes.

Does this work? Collect (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's is better, though my own observation of multiple dust-ups leads me to believe that many disputants are more interested in making the other person feel small, than they are in building our mutual powers of collaboration. For that reason, I would preserve the bit that says explicitly how others might interpret the response to a wording-change request. But I can live without it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that imposing "standard" English opens up some more serious discrimination issues than it would hope to fix. It will end up making people feel unwelcome from some countries that have less political/economical power and hence less say about what is "standard". I think it is more justifiable to suggest that people provide some explanation when they know something they say is at risk of being misunderstood, without enshrining any particular English; but even that is too much policy. We can't guarantee nobody is going to be a prat no matter how we talk to each other. Wnt (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be recommending that the following subheading be added to the talk page guidelines for collaborative talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll oppose for reasons stated above, and will instead advocate a modified version of what Collect and I whipped up.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative B
Under "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration"

• Avoid potentially offensive language Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Misplaced Pages. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as being the superior proposal here. Collect (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative B Comments

The proponents of Alternative B, in good faith, inserted it in the pre-RFC paragraph before I had entered the formal RFC heading for the bot. I suggest that they move it, consistently with the formatting of the formal RFC paragraph, into the formal RFC paragraph. I suggest that they insert their !votes in the Survey and their comments in Threaded Discussion. I understand that they may not have understood that I was about to add a new high-level paragraph to be supported by the bot, but that is how RFCs work. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although this RfC was doubtless initiated in the best of faith, the entire discussion is a little bit silly and best abandoned. There is no consensus for any proposal, and significant opposition to measures perceived as attempting to create an enforced standard of decorum. If any addition or alteration to the guideline is necessary, I think most people agree that we should bear in mind that language which may be normal in some cultures may be perceived differently in others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the talk page guidelines recommend the use of Standard written English? (An alternate policy proposal is also being drafted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Include !votes only in the Survey section. Comments in the Survey section may be ignored or moved. !votes in the Threaded Discussion section may be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

!votes may be marked for Alternative A, Alternative B, None, or Other. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To make room for ideas neither of us had considered before you drafted the RFC I converted the alternatives from standalone subsections to a bulleted listNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for this RFC that does not favor a particular proposal

Should we have a guideline somewhere on how to handle language that is acceptable to some, but might cause offense in our multicultural community, and if so, what should it say?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drafts of alternatives

Add one of these under "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration"

• Alternative A Recommendation: Use Standard Written English

Standard written English differs only in minor detail (orthography, occasionally number) between regional English varieties. Slang, by contrast, varies greatly between regional varieties. A word that is considered humorous in one variety of English may be deeply offensive in another. In order to facilitate cross-cultural communication and reduce cross-cultural misunderstanding, it is recommended that talk page discussion, as much as possible, be in standard written English. The use of slang is discouraged because it poses a greater risk of cultural misunderstanding than does standard written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative B (bilateral need to assume good faith without attempting to define "standard written English")

Avoid potentially offensive language Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Misplaced Pages. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative C

Swear with fucking abandon Use whatever foul language you want and tell people who complain to file at ANI if they don't like it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Heard you swearin'. Mind if I join in? Crap, boobs, crap. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative D (Same as B but omit religious place examples)

Avoid potentially offensive language Use language appropriate for job interviews and meeting a significant other's family or parents for the first time. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words inappropriate in such circumstances, it would be best if you do not use them on Misplaced Pages. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Alternative A - Prefer Alternative B to none. Reason for encouraging standard written English is that it will avoid the use of offensive language, and minimizes the risk of gaming the system by using language that has variant meanings, some of which are offensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please delete my words here and move the "discussion" part of our !vote to the discussion section. Else why have separate sections? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alt B - Utterly opposed to Alt A Is "utterly" offensive to cows? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alt B - Alt A is an ideal, but unworkable in this multi-culture project. --Pete (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Civility enforcement is Misplaced Pages's equivalent of the War on Drugs. The harder you try to punish incivility, the easier you make it to be uncivil by means that include accusing others of incivility! While Alt B may be good advice for a very large proportion of the time, it is not a useful thing to demand by Misplaced Pages administrative processes. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alt B as being responsive to the concerns expressed, being given in simple language, and recognizing that problems do exist and that this is a reasonable approach. Collect (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both - we already have lots of behavioral polices and guidelines that govern what we do and say on talk pages... no need for more. It comes down to this... we assume good faith. If someone says something that causes you to take offense, assume that they didn't intend it that way. If you really can't ignore it, just let them know that you are offended (and why) and give them a chance to apologize. 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both Not sure what the point of this is. Seems like a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose creating yet another policy for people to ignore --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Alternative D. Second choice, Alternative B. Lightbreather (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all as unnecessary. G. C. Hood (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Alt C, fuck yeah! betafive 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all. We don't need more instruction creep when "use common sense" should be adequate. --Holdek (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I strongly disagree with a bilateral need to assume good faith when the word or phrase that is used is one that is considered offensive in some varieties of English. The purpose of either guideline change is to shift the burden to the poster. Normally there should be a bilateral obligation to assume good faith. But in the case of the use of slang that is sometimes considered offensive, continuing that obligation on the part of the reader permits the writer to game the system by deliberately using a phrase or word that may be offensive and then claiming that it was meant in good faith. In the case of language that is known to be sometimes offensive, the obligation should be on the poster to avoid being misunderstood by not using possibly offensive language in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That perspective relies on two erroneous beliefs and they are

• Although there is no "official" authority on "standard written English", that comment implies that every word uttered by every editor will be instantly assessed exactly the same way by every possible reasonable person - which is nuts.
• That coment erroneously says Alternative B will shift the burden to the poster; as a principle drafter of Alt B it was not my intent to shift any burdens. Instead, it was my goal to write text that would hopefully assist emotionally upset eds apply existing policies/guidelines in these situations - stuff like AGF/UserTalk/DR/Civility etc. No burden would be shifted to anyone.

In addition, if Alternative B allows a few examples of gaming, then eds who play that game can be easily identified and blocked for prevention, or banned for determined GAMING if they just keep doing it. That's a much smaller headache than expecting every ed to fret over every utterance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• While much of the above discussion makes the rule sound like an optional suggestion to editors, failing to abide by suggestions in a policy can result in sanctions. Its clear from the discussion of gaming and good faith that the intent of the proposal is to create an enforceable regime of language censorship. Don't get confused by the use of words like recommend in the proposal, in the context of a Policy, that really ends up meaning require. Monty₈₄₅ 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I rebutted this in the comment below that includes yellow formatting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Re Alt B: if seeking to ensure that language used is multiculturally acceptable, it seems strange to impose a supposition of what is acceptable in religious buildings as the standard of what is acceptable on WP talk pages. Acceptability of language in religious buildings will vary widely between faiths, and within different assemblies of each faith, and is not amenable to an overall judgement. Again, many do not have religious belief; some actively object to religion, and may well object to religious statements uttered in those venues; if non-believers were to express their own views there, those views in their turn could be found objectionable. I don't see a clear need to add to existing policies and guidance on civility and no-personal-attacks: Noyster (talk), 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• My reading of that is that it is not support of any faith in particular, nor of religion in general, just an example of places where polite talk is customary and people who might normally swear and curse restrain their habitual behaviour. Other more widely acceptable examples might be broadcast news shows or parliamentary proceedings. Parliament can get pretty rowdy here in Canberra, but if certain words are used, members are suspended. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are to use "standard written English", what happens when I write in a way which comes naturally to me (and which isn't much different from "standard written English", whatever that is), but where the other person uses something that whilst inoffensive, is darned near incomprehensible? See posts at Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures#Signature templates and User talk:Redrose64#Admin or rollback rights. I just don't know how to explain things in a manner which he can understand; at the same time, I can't understand over half of what he's saying. But it's not an obviously foreign language, and there isn't a single swear in the whole thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Potentially offensive language and appropriate responses to it are already covered by guidelines at WP:TALK#USE, WP:TALKNO and WP:GOODFAITH and by the WP:CIVILITY policy. The suggested alternatives B and D are especially problematic, since they assume that personal standards developed in certain social or professional settings could be applied to Misplaced Pages. An addition to the guidelines specifically addressing "word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity" would be both unnecessary and ill-advised. G. C. Hood (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Etiquette also applies. That guideline is similarly redundant and could be demoted to an essay. G. C. Hood (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Enforceable Talk Page language restrictions are a bad idea

Enforcement against language that doesn't rise to the level of violating WP:NPA is going to be more disruptive than the harm these proposals seek to address. Monty₈₄₅ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, the language editors use can still be considered when it comes to judging a battle ground mentality, bias, or whether the person is WP:NOTHERE. But sanctioning editors on word choice alone is not acceptable. It will encourage editors to play games of noticeboard gotcha against those they disagree with, rather than brushing off the language and trying to solve the underlying dispute. Monty₈₄₅ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many fucking former editors would have had the balls to stick around if some of us hadn't been such assholes in the way we use language? Satire aside, the do nothing alternative leaves these issues up to existing civility/AGF standards.... which is what Alternative B does. The difference is that Alternative B also expects people on both sides to grow up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Agree that more editors would then find it easier to see offensive remarks and run to drama and conflict boards to seek redress. Personally, I would be reduced to writing in Simple English with no adjects and adverbs at all. Lest I accidentally fall afoul of such a directive enforceable by administrators. Fylbecatulous talk 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears you don't understand Alt B. Under Alt B, you can use your reasonable use of language and not worry.... until and unless someone pipes up, which is exactly the way it works now. If someone pipes up, then you can either choose to change it or not change it. Which is just how it works now. One thing Alt B adds is an expecation to take objection - if any is raised - seriously, and give it serious consideration. Which is different than it is now, because now people can just brush off such feedback - and the references to AGF/CIVILITY/NPA/TPG with impunity. Alt B lets you speak as you reasonably would normally, but only requires you to pause and really think about it if someone asks you to. Thus Alt B doesn't really let people say "So fuckin' sue me if you don't like my word choice". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see how this helps anything. User A posts a link to WP:DONTBEADICK in a discussion. User B tells user A that its offensive because its using a gendered slang term for the male anatomy and implying that people in the discussion need to be reminded not to be one. User A concludes its fine because its a long standing essay that even made its way to meta. User B is still upset, and opens an AN/I discussion. Then what? We argue whether linking to a long standing and highly respected essay is permissible under the revised guideline? Monty₈₄₅ 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you represent Alt B fairly, NAEG. It changes what can be used in the first place. --{{U|Elvey}} 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change, so yes. Besides the essay only exists in that some like sophomoric humor and others think catch-22s are funny. Oxymoronically, the essay says to not call people a dick, so it's hard to imagine the circumstances under which User A in your example would link to the essay without at least implying that someone is being one, and even harder to imagine examples where User A would be unable to make their point without reference to the essay. The best example I can think of is when User A calls User B a dick, and User C tells User A that was a dick-move by citing the essay. But there are lot of ways that grown-ups can say the same thing without foul language.

Most importantly, sure the DICK essay has been around a long time. Unfortunately, the number of productive, constructive editors has not enjoyed the same track record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I understand Alt B. My premise still stands that complaints would escalate. I personally am not offensive here and even filled out the failed Civility Enforcement Questionnaire a couple of years ago. However, the thought of 'word police' here gives me the shivers. I do not intend to dress my off-article comments in church gloves and hat. Fylbecatulous talk 20:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question How is this different than the newly-added Option C? Do the supporters here oppose Option C? If so please explain why such a position is not inherently contradictory. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support and I oppose Alt C, which would often contravene WP:CIVILITY if not WP:NPA as well. Nothing here has convinced me that we need to add to these policies specifically for talk pages. Alt A would freeze our fingers over the keyboard and not even help prevent people being insulted: we couldn't use mild idioms like "this argument doesn't cut the mustard" but could still say "you are a liar and an idiot". Alt B proposes that acceptability is tied to some external standard, which rapidly shifts from some generic religious building to the Australian federal parliament. With what such standard would all or most editors the world over be sufficiently familiar? I can't imagine any formulation which wouldn't simply increase the volume of WP:Wikilawyering: Noyster (talk), 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support; I hereby oppose Alt A, B and C too. I don't think we need more rules; it's already not OK to, for example, call another user a cunt, or describe their activity using the word cunt, per NPA. It is and should remain acceptable here to, for example, say that one likes sexual organs, such as ones' own and/or those of one's sexual partner(s), and to refer to them with 4 letter words.
• Oppose While having specific words be forbidden is futile, the idea that we should not assert that "anything goes" is certainly proper. Collect (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal contradicts WP:Civility and its vague regarding "enforcement", it also is overboard as it would be used to disable people from voicing their opinion that something is incivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rude word in Australia. We call everyone a c*$<@ck$%, so just suck it up, sister

Alt B will stymie those who game the system by claiming that calling another editor a "f*&^en n*&&a f@g c%$t m$&^%$f%#er" is pretty much a term of endearment in their culture. It also nixes those who claim to be offended by robust but not obscene words. We may not be the ideal genteel gentlemanly (or ladymanly) society here, but at least we shouldn't s^&t in each other's faces. --Pete (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the prissy asterisks (etc.)? Not very Australian… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I detest the attitude that it's okay to intentionally offend someone because "why, every Australian uses such language". We're not all f*uckwits. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand... it is not at all unusual for people to unintentionally offend someone... and then be surprised when told it was offensive.

You see... The flaw with saying "It's not a rude word in Australia. We call everyone a c*$<@ck$%, so just suck it up, sister" isn't in the part where you explain that c*$<@ck$% isn't a rude word ... the flaw is in the last part - where you say "so suck it up." If someone is upset with your language and complains about it... telling them to "suck it up" just makes the situation worse... all it takes to defuse the situation is a simple apology. If more is needed, start off with "I apologize" and then explain about how the term isn't a rude word down under. That makes it an explanation, and not a justification. 74.73.250.177 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps irony detectors should be given out more freely. Just hover over a statement and the needle jiggles a little. Or a lot, in this case. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

question related to settings in a talk page that control the actions of an archiving bot

I'm trying to get a clear understanding about what's going on at a talk page that typically has just a handful of section entries on its active page. The reason that I thought that this was odd was that, in the text of Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#When_to_condense_pages, it only goes as far as to say: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.

In a recent edit of the talk page concerned I stated: "The thing that I found confusing was that this page, even with the addition of last comments, currently has a size of just 10.2KB and that total would have been lower when the last set of data was moved. The archive that is currently being filled contains just 27.2KB of information. The earliest recorded date within the archived material was, I think, in Feb 2014. The combined data total far less than recommended levels. By taking a look at (and here I entered link structured: we find that the premature archives seem to be being automatically made by ]. The last archive was made on the 29 July 2014 of a discussion that was started on 19 March 2014.

The settings in the talk page, as far as I can make out, are:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Any comments would be appreciated. Gregkaye (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The settings are to archive any thread with no activity for 10 or more days, but not archive if it would result in 3 or fewer threads remaining. Monty₈₄₅ 23:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This bot does not have an option to check the size of the page to be archived. I don't think any of them do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I'll explain how the bot chooses when to archive based upon the parameters of the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} above, but not in that order.

• |minthreadsleft=3} - If the main talk page has more than three threads on it, archiving may be carried out
• |algo=old(10d) - If the last timestamp in any given thread was more than ten days ago, that thread may be archived

If both of the above are satisfied, threads last posted to more than 10 days ago are moved to the archive provided that at least three threads (of any age) remain on the page.

• |archive=Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive  %(counter)d - This is the "skeleton" page name for the archive pages.
• |counter=33 - The value given here is used to replace the %(counter)d in the "skeleton" page name, so giving the true page name for the archive, i.e. Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive 33.
• |maxarchivesize=200K - When the archive page exceeds 200 Kbytes in size, no more threads are archived to that page. The counter is incremented, becoming |counter=34 and so the next thread that is archived goes into a new archive - in this case Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive 34.
• |archiveheader={{aan}} - When creating a new archive page, whatever is specified by the |archiveheader= parameter is added at the very top - in this case the {{aan}} template - and then threads are added after that.
• |minthreadstoarchive=1 - this may be ignored: it only has an effect if set to 2 or more.

The bot does not provide a means to force archiving when the main talk page reaches a certain size.

The page in question currently has four threads. Their most recent timestamps are: (1) 08:19, 31 July 2014; (2) 14:42, 26 July 2014; (3) 06:42, 25 July 2014; (4) 00:06, 2 August 2014. Although there are more than three threads, none of them is more than ten days old, so none are due for archive.

The last archive of that page occurred at 00:47, 29 July 2014 and one thread was archived: its latest timestamp was 12:51, 18 July 2014 - slightly over ten days earlier. Four threads were left behind, because none were more than ten days old (the oldest of those that remained was timestamped 06:42, 25 July 2014 - less than four days earlier). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64. I am just surprised that a system can work like this, The guidelines talk of archiving or refactoring a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections. Even if sections in a talk page get added that contain just a title and a line or two of text, other sections can get bumped if a user doesn't login for a couple of weeks even if a page had little content. IMPO it would be better if the bot would only become active if both parameters, overall file size and a sensible minimum number of sections, was exceeded. I also think that a time parameter would be very relevant. Gregkaye (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The file size limit set by |maxarchivesize=200K concerns the size of the archive that the bot creates. It has nothing to do with the size of the page that is being archived, for which the controls are based upon: (i) the number of threads (however small) on the page; and (ii) the ages of the threads, based on the latest timestamp in the thread. They're adjustable: if you wanted archiving to occur no sooner than 90 days (just under three months), you would set |algo=old(90d); if you wanted archiving to leave at least six threads behind, you would set |minthreadsleft=6

Guidelines are not firm rules (they are stronger than essays but weaker than policies). Where WP:TALKCOND says "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." this is a recommendation, not an enforceable rule, and is intended to be adjusted as appropriate for the circumstances. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Perhaps recommendations could also be developed that pages are not archived when a page is still below a certain file size or before it has reached a certain number of subjects or no sooner than a certain number of days have elapsed since the last edit. Any user may take a Wikibreak or just a little time out and yet still find that a topic that they had been debating was swiftly archived in their absence. Gregkaye (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: One thread - the one timestamped 06:42, 25 July 2014 - was archived at 00:46, 5 August 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). This was just over ten days old, and although there are now four threads left, one more than the minimum set by |minthreadsleft=3, the oldest is timestamped 14:42, 26 July 2014 - less than ten days ago. This one should be archived tomorrow morning, unless somebody posts to it in the meantime. This will leave three threads on the page, and no more can then be archived unless another thread is started. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing talk page posts

It's been brought to my attention that collapsing off-topic posts may not be general practice as suggested in the current guidelines, and may create navigation or WP:ACCESS difficulties for some users. Does WP:TPO accurately reflect current consensus? If so, are there common difficulties that result from collapsing posts that warrant mentioning in WP:TPO and in template documentation? If not, how might WP:TPO be reworded? G. C. Hood (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Some people like to leave junk around citing AGF or other rationales, while others don't—we can't all be the same. Re the issue at WT:RFC, I do not know what is standard procedure there, and assuming you are not a regular on the page either, I would suggest accepting the advice given (what does it matter if it's right or not?). The posts you collapsed are obviously inappropriate, so if you feel motivated, move them to the current archive, or if you feel bold, just delete them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing talk page sections (rather than archiving, as suggested above) may create navigation difficulties. However, I think the current consensus, that clearly off-topic posts can be collapsed, and clearly off-topic sections can be archived (although I would delete them only if otherwise objectionable). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also typical at WT:RFC to assume that any message about any dispute is on-topic. In the instant case, the editor was actually asking for comments ("can you please give me your views on this"). The official advice would have to be "Sorry, but you don't qualify as two people, so you can't find an RFC/U for admin behavior" and "RFCs about article content belong on article talk pages", but it's not actually an off-topic message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited WP:TPO to reflect that there may not be a generally-applicable consensus in support of collapsing talk page posts. The revised wording is permissive, but less likely to be in disagreement with contrary practices at RfC or elsewhere. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

See also

The "See also" section is a bit crufty. I suggest removing the links that are struck out in the list below and keeping the rest.

• Misplaced Pages is not a forum—but you want to be a "moderator"
• Misplaced Pages is not a blog
• Don't lose the thread (which talk page to use)
• Using talk pages (how talk pages work)
• Active editing (a suggestion—not a guideline)
• Talk page layout (lead "bannerspace", table of contents, and discussions)
• Talk page formatting (threading messages—indenting, etc.)
• Etiquette (how to be nice)
• Misplaced Pages:Talk page highlights (humour)
• Template messages/Talk namespace (information banners for article talk pages)
• Talk page templates (how to use the banners)
• User pages (what you can and can't have on your user pages)
• A researcher's guide to discussion pages (using talk pages for research)

G. C. Hood (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the extra links. Some of them were duplicates of links that remain in the list, but feel free to put any of them back if you feel they're important. G. C. Hood (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of TPO

At the following discussion ‪Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process‬#RfC: Can admins revert NACs if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus (WP:NACD), pertaining to AfD?, the guideline at WP:TPO has been cited as evidence that administrators may not reopen discussions (RM, AfD, etc.) which have been closed by non-admins. Any input regarding the interpretation of TPO is welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Followup: That discussion has been snow-closed, as affirming that admins can re-open discussions that have been closed by non-admins. Should this be added to the TPO guidelines as another "example of appropriately editing others' comments"? Something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Admin oversight: Re-opening by an administrator of a discussion that was closed by a non-administrator.
• I don't think we need to update TPO for an edge case like this. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that WP:TPO doesn't need to be changed.  Editors should follow WP:TPO when they are reopening discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination, prejudice, bias etc

There is nothing currently in Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments with direct reference to Discrimination, prejudice, bias or similar issues, just mention of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Trolling(Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition) and Misplaced Pages:Vandalism.

I recently reviewed a thread that had been totally deleted. I restored the thread and, not knowing what best to do, again deleted the specific posts that I thought to be most offensive. Misplaced Pages:PREJUDICE currently links to the limited content at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice. Any thoughts on how, if at all, content on this issue can be developed? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. -complete wording from WP:PREJUDICE.

I often see attacks against groups of editors, as defined by gender, gender-preference, nationality, native language and so on. Sometimes with a suggestion that some groups (use of language is the most obvious) are incompetent to edit Misplaced Pages, or are biased in some way. This sort of behaviour might not directly target a specific editor, but any editor who is a member of these groups is bound to feel the hate.

Even accusations of bias can go too far. Most people are biased towards (and/or against) specific groups, even if it is just the supporters of a given football team. Passions can flare. We need biased editors, who will often go further into a subject and present more points of view from more diverse sources than we would otherwise have if we relied on just mainstream media. So long as the bias doesn't go further into our articles than NPOV allows.

We are a broad church - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - and have done very well from this, where other, narrower, competitors have fallen short. I support the inclusion of some injunction against prejudice in these guidelines. Gregkaye, would you like to put forward a draft for discussion, something that would have been useful in the incident you mention? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting New Section somewhere else

On my talk page I receive a lot of RFC's I like to keep them separate from the actual discussion with editors on my page for clarity's sake. Is there a piece of code I could insert which would allow the pressing of the New Section button to have their section created mid page rather than at the bottom of the page? SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service, Template:Frs user and the bot source code, I don't see any means for the bot posting anywhere other than as a conventional "new section" at the bottom of the primary User talk page. You could ask Legoktm (talk · contribs) if it is possible to add a feature, either to post to a subpage (like Signpost) or to overwrite the previous notice, like SuggestBot (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are objections do not refactor a page

This change (August 2012) to the the heading "Refactoring for relevance" to "Off-topic posts" and the follow on advice, completely ignored the issue that appears in WP:Refactoring and has been at the top of the templates used to hide conversations years before this edit was made.

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done.

— WP:Refactoring (since June 2007‎)

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

— Template:Hidden archive top/doc (since March 2010‎)

These templates should only be used in accordance with the Misplaced Pages:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

— Template:Collapse top/doc (since March 2010‎)

The last thing we need is people having content disputes on talk pages about content disputes in articles. Hence my addition lifted from Template:Hidden archive top/doc: "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather I don't think you wording is an improvident, I chose the wording with care from Template:Hidden archive top/doc out of the three I presented because it allows an uninvolved administrator/editor to hat a conversation. The problems with the close templates occurs when involved editors close a conversation (not infrequently including a parting shot by way of an close box title eg "Closing off topic rant by user:xyz"). Also removing refactoring from the second sentence opens that sentence up to the same potential abuse as the first one had before it was modified. -- PBS (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your and Lightbreather's changes, as seen here, because non-minor changes to it should have WP:Consensus (whether WP:Silent consensus or otherwise). Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the consensus process is a reverter explaining why they disagree with the changes. NE Ent 01:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because, in addition to thinking that significant changes to Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines should generally be discussed at the talk pages of those policies or guidelines first (which is an approach I also recently applied at the WP:Reliable sources page), PBS's objections to Lightbreather's changes clearly show that these matters need discussion. I am also considering to analyze the matters and give my take on them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, you should not revert unless you personally object, and then you should be prepared to explain your personal objections. If PBS wanted it reverted now, he can do that himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur; I've reverted to the prior version. It's fine to revert if one objects to a change but justification for the revert needs to come in the immediate time frame. NE Ent 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and NE Ent, I disagree, and why I disagree is made clear above. I personally object to significant changes being made to Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines without discussion on the talk pages of those policies or guidelines about those changes first. And that is indeed a good enough reason to revert, as is made clear by the notes at the top of these pages, and as has been made clear time and time again by my reverting in such cases, including the aforementioned WP:Reliable sources edit. It's been often enough that changes have been made to policies and guidelines only to be reverted months later because a significant number of editors missed that WP:Creep instance. WP:Silent consensus is too often a fail, which is why it's also only an essay. I uphold WP:Consensus until that is no longer the WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what policy actually says: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Misplaced Pages page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance." NE Ent 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And where did I state anything of necessity? I used the word generally, and I stand by that, per what I have stated above. If a Misplaced Pages editor goes around making significant changes to a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline without WP:Consensus, that Misplaced Pages editor had better be prepared that someone is likely to revert him or her on the simple basis that those changes should perhaps be discussed on those policy or guideline talk pages first. And it's generally accepted among very experienced Misplaced Pages editors that once that revert is made, there is perhaps no WP:Consensus and the matter should be discussed on the policy or guideline talk page, and that the new material should not be restored unless there is WP:Consensus to restore it. You mention policy; WP:Consensus is policy, and too few Misplaced Pages editors respect it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a significant change, IMO not supported by policy. That this is in conflict with WP:REFACTOR means that one of them should be changed, but I'd side go with modifying WP:REFACTOR first. The claim that someone reverting a major policy change made without consensus needs to disagree with the change is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Reverting without explanation is not consensus. Making edits without discussing is part of the consensus process .See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. NE Ent 10:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur Rubin. And as can be seen in the edit history and above, I did revert with an explanation. That two editors think it was not a good enough explanation is something I clearly disagree with, especially since my revert was a standard revert (as in the type of revert widely accepted in Misplaced Pages practice). Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PBS, when you started this discussion, did you mean to ping me? I was busy for a few days and this finally hit my radar, which seems to be in part about my edits, but you pinged User:C above, so I'm not sure who's talking about what. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather I did not intend to ping you when I started this discussion, but to explain the change I had made. I did ping you when you altered the wording I added, but this edit, I suspect accidentally, changed the name in the ping. I have now corrected it. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a help if we leave the who did what and discuss the change. Let us start with the change I made, to this behavioral guideline which is explained at the start of this section. the change brings the behaviour recommended in this behavioural guideline into line with behaviour recommended elsewhere and which pre-dates the changes made to this guideline 2012 that changed wording about "Refactoring for relevance" to "Off-topic posts". As I said above the last thing we need is people having content disputes on talk pages about content disputes in articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I sure didn't mean to rock the boat. The page was on my watchlist from participating in a discussion a couple of months ago. Put simply:

• I got a notice and read the edit summary and the edit itself.
• I read the section in question (Others' comments - Off-topic posts), plus WP:RTP, and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, and found nothing about "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
• But I did find this: " should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing," so I boldly edited the bold edit (above) that preceded mine, plus a couple of copyedits that made the point concise without changing its meaning.

However, if there's some deeper policy discussion that I didn't catch, I didn't and don't mean to mess with that. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

14.140.121.226 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)great

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)