User talk:Thright: Difference between revisions
stop removing half a conversation. |
It is over!!! OVER!!! Please move along. Thank you |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Admins in particular will tend to attract more criticism, and should be extra gracious in receiving it. If someone has a disagreement with your actions as an editor or an admin, you should listen to them. You might not agree that their criticism is valid (this happens all the time, and this is allowed too) but you'll never know if you don't first take the time to actually listen to it. |
Admins in particular will tend to attract more criticism, and should be extra gracious in receiving it. If someone has a disagreement with your actions as an editor or an admin, you should listen to them. You might not agree that their criticism is valid (this happens all the time, and this is allowed too) but you'll never know if you don't first take the time to actually listen to it. |
||
:You are more than welcome to challenge a page, I have no problem with that. It is the attacks on Dominik that is acting in bad faith. And the removing content and then trying to speedy delete it that is acting in bad faith. If you want to challenge an article you take it to AFD and make a case for why it should be deleted. It is the trying to sneak articles by speedy delete that is where the acting in bad faith comes from. -[[User:Djsasso|Djsasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:16, 17 March 2008
MOVE ALONG!
What every one needs to read, What happens when you challenge a page? You get called "you're acting in bad faith"
Taken from Friday's user page. Excellent advise that we all must follow; Ive been rather astonished lately to see so many people misinterpreting "assume good faith" as though it means "we must always agree with each other." Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty of room for good editors to disagree with each other, all in good faith. In other words, criticism is allowed. Because of Wikipedia's nature as a collaborative project, criticism is necessary. Criticism of articles helps us improve them, and criticism of editors helps us become better at what we do.
Too frequently, people cry "assume good faith" or "no personal attacks", without apparently comprehending what these words mean. Being civil is about keeping our discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into schoolyard name-calling. We can disagree strongly, and even use strong words, while keeping the discussion on topic. When evaluating an admin candidate for example, if you feel they have poor judgement, it's OK to say so. It's not a personal attack. When a user is disruptive and a block is being discussed, it's not a personal attack to come right out and say they've been disruptive. You should have evidence, of course, but criticism is allowed.
Admins in particular will tend to attract more criticism, and should be extra gracious in receiving it. If someone has a disagreement with your actions as an editor or an admin, you should listen to them. You might not agree that their criticism is valid (this happens all the time, and this is allowed too) but you'll never know if you don't first take the time to actually listen to it.