User talk:Passmic
Passmic, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Passmic! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC) |
No personal attacks[edit]
Don't be so rude, please. "Wikipedia is such a vile ideological cesspool with people like you"[1] — calling Wikipedia names if fine (as far as I'm concerned, others may disagree), but the "with people like you" is extremely contemptuous towards the person you're addressing, and that's not acceptable. No personal attacks is policy. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
- Would you rather I substitute that with "People who crush neutrality edits because they're driven by a personal ideology". Is that more acceptable? Passmic (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Assuming good failth is also policy. Muffled Pocketed 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't more acceptable. It doesn't look like you took the time to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks that I linked you to. Its essence is "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Please take it to heart or you will soon be blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
- *Alright. It won't happen again. Is it best to retrospectively edit the offending material? Or does one generally keep material up, regardless, as an ongoing record? And in all fairness, while we're sticking to draconian implementation, saying "people who crush neutrality..." is not a personal attack, as it does not explicitly reference the person. It's implicit, and the only way that the inference could truly be made, is if the person in question truly viewed themselves as the subject of the comment, which given the opposition made (of crushing dissent) would probably not be all that objectionable in the first place.Passmic (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I won't engage with your "draconian" subtleties. No, please don't remove anything on the talkpage; it messes up the dialogue, and can so easily wrongfoot the person who replies. If there's something you said that you regret, you can "strike it out", that's sort of a custom. Strikeout is done by putting <s> before and </s> after the material. I'll demonstrate: it
works like this. Check out edit mode to see how it looks there. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
- I won't engage with your "draconian" subtleties. No, please don't remove anything on the talkpage; it messes up the dialogue, and can so easily wrongfoot the person who replies. If there's something you said that you regret, you can "strike it out", that's sort of a custom. Strikeout is done by putting <s> before and </s> after the material. I'll demonstrate: it
- *Alright. It won't happen again. Is it best to retrospectively edit the offending material? Or does one generally keep material up, regardless, as an ongoing record? And in all fairness, while we're sticking to draconian implementation, saying "people who crush neutrality..." is not a personal attack, as it does not explicitly reference the person. It's implicit, and the only way that the inference could truly be made, is if the person in question truly viewed themselves as the subject of the comment, which given the opposition made (of crushing dissent) would probably not be all that objectionable in the first place.Passmic (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)