User talk:Tempodivalse/User interaction policy

Do you think that mentioning possible cultural, generational, or experiential differences in an attempt to understand differing opinions between editors can be considered a personal attack? Mattisse (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it is directly relevant to the issue at hand and is phrased in a respectful manner. I was trying to work this facet into the policy some way so we don't have people (incorrectly) warning people like you. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All editors are strongly encouraged to comply with the above guidelines. Nobody, from newbies to established editors, should be exempted from respecting others. I certainly agree, but it takes some sophistication and experience to understand what a "personal attack" is; even with Wikipedia's policy, there is intense disagreement and debate over what constitutes a personal attack, and the issue is often brought to ANI.  To be informed on your talk page by a terse post that you have make a "personal attack" is pretty much meaningless to a newbie, IMO. "Personal attack" as used on wiki is  wiki jargon.  I suggest that the message to the newbie (and sometimes to other editors) should include the wording of the personal attack made by the editor and an explanation of why it is considered an attack. Educate rather than intimidate or punish should be the first few steps, with the obvious exceptions listed in the Wikipedia policy. These are my views.  Mattisse (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, after rereading my draft, I don't think the comments you aimed at Pi zero (I assume that's what you're talking about?) would necessarily fall into the category of "personal attacks" under this definition. The text specifically states "negative/derogatory" remarks "irrelevant" to the issue. You were by no means off-topic or disrespectful. The problem is that the policy needs to be broad enough to encompass clear violations, yet specific enough so that people don't accuse others personal attacks falsely. If you have any suggestions for better phrasing, I'm open to them. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a helpful way to explain what is a personal attack is to give many, short examples, along the lines of "a picture is worth a thousand words". I acknowledge this is hard to do. Wikipedia gives a general list.  Also, I think there should be frequent links to the NPA and civility policies. These issues don't seem to be mentioned at all in the information given to newbies. I had to look and look to find Etiquette. As far as I can tell, a link for it is found in only one place: at the bottom of the . Mattisse (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I like the 'irrelevant' idea, I fear we may then get into arguments about whether it was relevant or not :/. Can we have a nutshell at the top incorporating BarkingFish's comment on the Water Cooler - 'This policy in a nutshell: Criticise content, not contributors.'? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)