User talk:Stefanson

Welcome!

Hello, Stefanson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to ignore your borderline personal attacks on Talk:Bernard Madoff. Would you be please be kind enough to restrict your comments to the content, and leave out your perception of the motives, intelligence, and abilities of contributors? If you wish more details of what I am referring to, just search for your use of the terms "facile", "gratuitous", "desperate claim", and "no longer a fair discussion" on this version of the page (permalinked for future reference). Thanks! Frank | talk 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Stefanson commenced posting at Talk:Bernard Madoff he mistakenly accused me of making edits I didn't make, and in general has tended to personalize the discussion. He acknowledged his error on that, and I think he's trying, but as you point out this habit of personal jibes has got to stop. I do feel that this editor is acting in good faith but just isn't acquainted with the rules.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and I believe my note above reflects that. It would be clear to anyone searching for those comments I mentioned above that this occurred over several messages; it's not a single outburst. When it got to the point I believed the pattern was established and not a "one-off", I made the comment above and hopefully the matter is closed. It would be nice for User:Stefanson to acknowledge the exchange, but the point has at least been made. Frank | talk 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take notice of your remarks on my page, and I am trying to conscientize myself about my shortcomings of style and improve it. On the other hand I hope you also acknowledge that it is natural to feel it as a personal attack to ignore my arguments and policy-references by not referring to them in your answers. It may also be interpreted as disrespectful as a personal attack. If you are in the position of administrator or regular editor with certain discretionary power then it goes along with a responsibility for extra consideration and courtesy, inconsistent with e.g. just ondoing edits prior to one-way discussion. I am also thinking of the less known dynamics of social relationships as found in Hannah Arendt's book "On violence". The analog of violence on the written arena is a certain awakened emotionality which you label as borderline personal attacks or personal jibes which you only can meet with a masterful "this habit has to stop". And, finally, I think about Wikipedia:Newbie:

1. Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value.
2. When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club.
3. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
4. Listen actively.
5. Choose to learn from the incident.
6. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
7. You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

On occasion you may wish to tell me whether you have learnt from the incident, or whether you found something of value in the experience. Thank you. Stefanson (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an "incident" here; we're building an encyclopedia. My comment was about the method of attempting to reach consensus.
I definitely think that I applied the majority of the principles above, especially by not using any of the standard templates for the situation: {{Uw-npa1}}, {{Uw-npa2}}, {{Uw-npa3}}, etc. My note to you was in the spirit of "words to the wise" as a newbie and I don't think any more needs to be said - especially if you heed the words.
Regarding undoing edits, we all have a responsibility to follow WP:BLP very closely, as it is one thing that has the potential to subject the Wikimedia Foundation to lawsuits, so the idea of establishing consensus to remove information that is potentially libelous or defamatory is not applicable. The established policy is that if one is in doubt, remove the information. I'm sorry if you disagree with that approach, but that's how things work around here; it's not that it's my own personal style.
There's no need to post both here and on my talk page; it is generally considered bad form to post the same message in multiple places. I'm watching, but if you have reason to believe I'm not, you can use the {{talkback}} template on my page.
If you do have any questions about policy, form, etiquette, technical help, "where do I find info about...", or whatever, do please feel free to ask. I do always aim to be helpful, especially with editors who are looking for answers. Feel free to check my talk page and its archives. Frank | talk 16:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frank. It's a very big mistake to take things personally or to think that because your view of policy is disregarded that you have been personally attacked or disrespected. That happens all the time, and if you respond in a personal fashion it will make things difficult for you. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I will ponder on them as related to the points I was trying to make in my entries. One important thing for me is that I now feel that all what could be said has been said. Whatever misunderstandings remain are to be considered as unavoidable and I can only hope that in the lon run all of us will learn something from the discussions. Stefanson (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No responses on this page

Sorry, but because of other urgent commitments i may not be able to respond to inserts on this page until further notice. Stefanson (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:American Jews

I apologize for the tone of my comments that were directed toward you. I'll edit them accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]