Misplaced Pages

User:Hipal: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:23, 25 October 2010 view sourceHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,994 edits FOC← Previous edit Revision as of 19:13, 27 October 2010 view source Hipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,994 edits PlanretireNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
}} --> }} -->
<!-- {{Off and On WikiBreak}} --> <!-- {{Off and On WikiBreak}} -->
{{Template:Planretire}}

{{user new message}} {{user new message}}
{| id="userpage" align="center" style="text-align:center; border: {{{border-s|1}}}px solid {{{border-c|#ffc9c9}}}; background-color:{{{background|#FFFFF3}}}" {| id="userpage" align="center" style="text-align:center; border: {{{border-s|1}}}px solid {{{border-c|#ffc9c9}}}; background-color:{{{background|#FFFFF3}}}"

Revision as of 19:13, 27 October 2010

Template:Planretire

Please click here to leave me a new message.
This is the Wikipedia user page for Ronz.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipal.

This user participates in WikiProject Spam.
Picture of the day Lime Lime Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

My perspective on editing Misplaced Pages

The majority of editors are here to create and maintain an encyclopedia. I'm one of them. I'm assuming we're a majority. We're not so good at dealing with those editors that are here for purposes detrimental to creating and maintaining this encyclopedia. We don't always agree on what's detrimental, and we've found the need for trade offs between what we create and how we maintain it all.

And then there's the drama of all these editors trying to work together with some harmony...

Unfortunately, it's not all WikiLove

I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-too-common bullying within Misplaced Pages. I'm doing this in response to my own involvement into the events surrounding the Ilena and Fyslee arbitration. I feel the arbitration should have never have taken place, and that it did only because numerous editors let the problems get so very out of hand for such a very long time that there was no other choice. I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility. (originally written for my talk page --Ronz 21:28, 9 April 2007(UTC))

One thing I've tried recently with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil. Not that I don't ask them to be civil, I just don't want to be pulled into drawn-out discussions about it. Misplaced Pages does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil. --Ronz 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua#Soapbox | WP:COOL | WP:GRIEF | WP:FANATIC | WP:DGAF | WP:CHILLOUT | WP:TROUT | WoW | WP:HERE] | "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" | User:Durova/The_dark_side | WP:GIANTDICK | meta:Don't be a dick | There is no cabal, and certainly no Spanish Inquisition, so please just try to get along with fellow Wikipedians | Vexatious litigation | WP:SOUP | Piety | So what? | Send in the clowns | User:Dmcdevit/On_edit_warring | WP:OWB | WP:Civil_POV_pushing | WP:FOC

"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

Time to find some simple ways to show my appreciation to those editors that are civil and cooperative make an effort in some way to help Misplaced Pages, where they aren't obviously disrupting or vandalizing it at the same time. The easiest way is to simply tell people that their work is appreciated whenever possible...

Reducing disruption

The key to reducing disruption isn't to go back and right old wrongs or to deal a slew of warnings. Digging through old contributions doesn't "reduce disruption", it re-opens wounds. "Reducing disruption" isn't about righting great wrongs, it's about lowering the temperature.

Of course, if you really want to reduce disruption, it's important to approach the matter fairly. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting started

User:WLU/Generic_sandbox

The old civil0 with my additions

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
  • Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful.

Addressing WP:TALK problems

Simple and general cases

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in ARTICLETALK. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. ARTICLE is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not.

Using talk page as a battleground

(Better combined with the above)

Please keep in mind that, "Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." - WP:BATTLE.

Please focus your article talk page comments on how to improve the article, rather than commenting on possible motivations of other editors. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." - WP:TALK.

Round in circles reminder

Please help further the current discussions... If you feel the need to repeat past arguments, please refer to the previous ones...

  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Voting

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in ARTICLETALK. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please explain your viewpoint, rather than just agreeing with another's. Please see WP:VOTE and WP:TALK for more information.

  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.

Escalating focus on individuals in article talk pages

Please use the talk pages only for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel the need to discuss the contributors to the article or talk page, please find a more appropriate venue to do so per WP:DR, such as the editor's talk page or WP:WQA. Again, please refer to WP:TALK for more on talk page use. Thanks!

Repeated WP:TALK violations - cease and desist

(Needs work) Please stop contributing to ARTICLETALK as you are doing here: DIFF. Such comments turn the talk page into a battleground. If you are unable to follow talk page guidelines, unable to accept good faith of others, and unable to work cooperatively with others towards consensus, then perhaps you find some other way to contribute to Misplaced Pages. See WP:MENTOR.

Escalating a situation via edit summary

Please resist responding to other editors improper behavior with what might be seen as incivility, especially in edit summaries where comments cannot be refactored later. I find it extremely difficult to WP:KEEPCOOL myself dealing with such editors, but the problems tend to get worse when misbehaving editors find reasons for retaliating against others.

Good example

A bit more free advice.  :) You have good points here, but perhaps you could think of a better way to phrase them? Perhaps put yourself in the frame of mind of, "What if I were saying this to Elonka, instead of Fyslee? Would I use the same language?" If the answer is "No", then it might be a good idea to go back and rework your post to a more neutral tone. Can't hurt, right?  :) --Elonka 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to common warnings

Deleted new articles

New articles are routinely deleted if they don't appear to be on a notable topic. If you can include multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the topic's notability, then article should not be deleted.Misplaced Pages:Starting an article covers the topic well.

Use of warning templates

I try to be better than the warning levels for the uw templates (eg Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi-level_templates). If I had my way, I'd rewrite the descriptions of the different levels to be more focused on previous behavior. For instance, I almost always give a uw-s1 warning to someone whose spammed for the first time, or hasn't yet received any spam warnings. I'll start with a uw-s2 warning only in the most blatant of cases, usually where the editor has already reverted back his own spam. I doubt if I've ever started with a uw-s3 warning to anyone, though I may have when they've already received related warnings at level 2 or higher. I try to follow the same approach with other situations. (from )

Link cleanup

I'm in the process of cleaning up (link) links, and noticed you added one (diff) here. If you've added others, or think that these links are appropriate, please let me know. (link)



The Spamstar of Glory
To Ronz for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Misplaced Pages. --Hu12 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

en:Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png I think you deserve this for your random act of kindness to me. ----CrohnieGal/Contribs 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Durova, award Ronz the Working Man's Barnstar for contributions to WP:COIN. Keep up the good work! Durova 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
For contributions against spam and generally being able to keep the nose to the policy grindstone Shot info 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


The Wikipediallexcellence Award
To Ronz for commendable Wikipediallexcellence and general gratuitivity in times of massive apathy -- thanks!Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


File:Spam 4 types.jpg Four types of Spam
For your intense efforts to reduce the Spamocity of Misplaced Pages I serve up to you four different types of (potentially edible) Spam. While I may not agree with your stance on everything I appreciate (at least most of) the work that you do here--kelapstick (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Category: