| Revision as of 21:01, 22 December 2008 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,079 edits →New Wikibreak: good idea← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 22 December 2008 edit undoSeicer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 edits →WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| * Friend, that is a smart move. Come back refreshed, and with the benefit of a whole load more background reading. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | * Friend, that is a smart move. Come back refreshed, and with the benefit of a whole load more background reading. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to ]. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, <small>] | ] | ]</small> 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 22 December 2008
 | ජපස is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how exact wordings is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
New Wikibreak
There are woefully few people operating on Misplaced Pages trying to get things done. I succumbed to temptation and responded to a Big Bang denier at Talk:Big Bang, nominated two articles for deletion, cleaned up the cold fusion lead, and tried to make sure that people didn't bury our attempt to make some Misplaced Pages:Scientific standards. That got me into trouble. So I bow out for a bit... but...
I shall return!
- Friend, that is a smart move. Come back refreshed, and with the benefit of a whole load more background reading. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist
An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)