| Revision as of 13:34, 26 September 2006 editGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 editsm Reverted edits by 64.12.116.12 (talk) to last version by 68.39.174.238← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:56, 26 September 2006 edit undo205.188.116.137 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Hi, I happened to notice your issues with ]. First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with ]. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings ''should'' be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --] 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | Hi, I happened to notice your issues with ]. First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with ]. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings ''should'' be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --] 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| === Introduction: How to play Misplaced Pages === | |||
| If you do not believe in the healthy spirit of competition and that collaborative editing is the best way to improve Misplaced Pages, then I suggest you do not read this article. | |||
| === Always follow NPOV === | |||
| ==== Be first ==== | |||
| Don't let people ]. It doesn't matter what you have to say, ''as long as you say it right''. | |||
| ==== Edit articles that are missing your information ==== | |||
| The best choices are articles that are not edited all too frequently. ] are always hanging out at the ] so it will take a lot of bickering, detailed knowledge and time to improve that article. Start somewhere else that is equally lacking in your perspective. | |||
| ==== Get someone else to trigger the 3RR ==== | |||
| Don't revert NPOV changes made by other people. Instead, make your own changes that other people will want to revert. Then, you can report them for violating 1RR or, even better, ]. | |||
| ==== Phrase statements in a neutral manner to be NPOV ==== | |||
| Use "some argue"<ref>http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue</ref><ref>NB: Dated. Use a random "source" found through Google to endorse the Truth.</ref>. Note the difference between the following two statements: | |||
| * POV: George W. Bush is a terrorist. | |||
| * NPOV: Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist. | |||
| The first statement is clearly POV and should be immediately deleted. But, the second is a paragon of impartiality and a neutral point of view. When "some argue" doesn't feel right, try using "many critics". "Concerns about" also works quite well. Make up your own once you get better at it. Here are some examples: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ==== Google is the best way to cite ==== | |||
| ]. For example, I wanted to cite the above sentence (which was already NPOV, but let's say someone disputed that anyone had said that). Well, Google proves them wrong! Haha! | |||
| * ''in article'': Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist. <nowiki><ref>http://www.nogw.com/ - "George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House"</ref></nowiki> | |||
| * ''in references'': <nowiki><references/></nowiki> | |||
| === Diversions === | |||
| It's important to divert attention from any edit you make so partisans won't be able to suppress your information. One good way to do this is to make a series of edits, especially mixing in some grammar and spelling fixes. Putting a minor edit on top can't hurt, so do that too. A lot of people just check the top edit. | |||
| === Be nice === | |||
| Always be painfully nice to anyone who disagrees with you. Remember, like any game, the point is to let the other team foul more often than you foul. If you have conviction and belief in your edits, someone who doesn't will probably get angry at you because they failed to suppress your information. And ''someone who is angry is much less likely to get in your way''. | |||
| === Blocking === | |||
| It's always important to bring in a neutral third party, ideally a friend, to block anyone the moment they violate a rule. Once they've been blocked, it will be very hard for them to suppress your information. | |||
| === Page protection === | |||
| If you have gotten the article ''just right'' in an edit war, it's a good idea to stop anyone from making further changes that will change it from being NPOV to POV. Quickly hop on IRC (#wikipedia on irc.freenode.net) and ask a neutral third-party to protect the page, ideally someone who hasn't been following the edit war so you can get them to protect the right version. | |||
| === Don't own up to your philosophy === | |||
| Whoever you voted for, whatever you believe, don't put it into your User page. All it's going to do is encourage someone from the other side to stand overlord over your pages. Seriously, what will it buy you? It's better to hide the real you, whatever it is. This place is not about being honest about who you are. | |||
| From #wikipedia: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| <ambi2> these userboxen are informative. | |||
| <ambi2> i just found that *another* user i previously respected is a right-wing asshole. | |||
| </pre> | |||
| === Pick examples with care === | |||
| Let's say you are writing an article that includes some amount of criticism. Yes, you could use negative examples from both sides, but it would make your point better to use related examples many times. It's only more confusing to switch around and use examples from "both sides". Likewise, so-called counterbalancing points will only obscure matters. | |||
| === Deletion is a clue as to your position === | |||
| If you create a new article, and someone attempts to get it deleted, then there is probably a reason for it, probably even a policy. Do not let so-called "reason" get in the way of your new article. It is not your fault that people are unable to get the point of what you are trying to say. If they succeed, you can always recreate the article and try naming it something else. It isn't your fault that people are unable to follow your advanced thinking. | |||
Revision as of 19:56, 26 September 2006
Vandalism
Please do not remove comments from user talk pages, such as you did to mine with this edit:. It is considered WP:Vandalism. -- Dcflyer 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do no remove semi-protection tags from articles
Please do not remove the semi-protection tag from articles that are semi-protected. Doing so does not remove the protection from the page but does mislead editors. Thanks, Gwernol 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus
Hi, I happened to notice your issues with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with consensus. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings should be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --Kevin_b_er 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Introduction: How to play Misplaced Pages
If you do not believe in the healthy spirit of competition and that collaborative editing is the best way to improve Misplaced Pages, then I suggest you do not read this article.
Always follow NPOV
Be first
Don't let people suppress the information you have to share. It doesn't matter what you have to say, as long as you say it right.
Edit articles that are missing your information
The best choices are articles that are not edited all too frequently. Republicans are always hanging out at the George W. Bush so it will take a lot of bickering, detailed knowledge and time to improve that article. Start somewhere else that is equally lacking in your perspective.
Get someone else to trigger the 3RR
Don't revert NPOV changes made by other people. Instead, make your own changes that other people will want to revert. Then, you can report them for violating 1RR or, even better, 3RR.
Phrase statements in a neutral manner to be NPOV
Use "some argue". Note the difference between the following two statements:
- POV: George W. Bush is a terrorist.
- NPOV: Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist.
The first statement is clearly POV and should be immediately deleted. But, the second is a paragon of impartiality and a neutral point of view. When "some argue" doesn't feel right, try using "many critics". "Concerns about" also works quite well. Make up your own once you get better at it. Here are some examples:
- Past NPOV phrasing using "some argue"
- Past NPOV phrasing using "many critics"
- Past NPOV phrasing using "concerns about"
Google is the best way to cite
Cite your sources. For example, I wanted to cite the above sentence (which was already NPOV, but let's say someone disputed that anyone had said that). Well, Google proves them wrong! Haha!
- in article: Some argue that George W. Bush is a terrorist. <ref>http://www.nogw.com/ - "George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House"</ref>
- in references: <references/>
Diversions
It's important to divert attention from any edit you make so partisans won't be able to suppress your information. One good way to do this is to make a series of edits, especially mixing in some grammar and spelling fixes. Putting a minor edit on top can't hurt, so do that too. A lot of people just check the top edit.
Be nice
Always be painfully nice to anyone who disagrees with you. Remember, like any game, the point is to let the other team foul more often than you foul. If you have conviction and belief in your edits, someone who doesn't will probably get angry at you because they failed to suppress your information. And someone who is angry is much less likely to get in your way.
Blocking
It's always important to bring in a neutral third party, ideally a friend, to block anyone the moment they violate a rule. Once they've been blocked, it will be very hard for them to suppress your information.
Page protection
If you have gotten the article just right in an edit war, it's a good idea to stop anyone from making further changes that will change it from being NPOV to POV. Quickly hop on IRC (#wikipedia on irc.freenode.net) and ask a neutral third-party to protect the page, ideally someone who hasn't been following the edit war so you can get them to protect the right version.
Don't own up to your philosophy
Whoever you voted for, whatever you believe, don't put it into your User page. All it's going to do is encourage someone from the other side to stand overlord over your pages. Seriously, what will it buy you? It's better to hide the real you, whatever it is. This place is not about being honest about who you are.
From #wikipedia:
<ambi2> these userboxen are informative. <ambi2> i just found that *another* user i previously respected is a right-wing asshole.
Pick examples with care
Let's say you are writing an article that includes some amount of criticism. Yes, you could use negative examples from both sides, but it would make your point better to use related examples many times. It's only more confusing to switch around and use examples from "both sides". Likewise, so-called counterbalancing points will only obscure matters.
Deletion is a clue as to your position
If you create a new article, and someone attempts to get it deleted, then there is probably a reason for it, probably even a policy. Do not let so-called "reason" get in the way of your new article. It is not your fault that people are unable to get the point of what you are trying to say. If they succeed, you can always recreate the article and try naming it something else. It isn't your fault that people are unable to follow your advanced thinking.
- http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue
- NB: Dated. Use a random "source" found through Google to endorse the Truth.