Wikipedia talk:Don't be prejudiced

My reasons for creating this article

Many editors have been attaching prejudice "labels" to other Wikipedians lately, myself included. For me, it was "cheerleader vandal." Although there's no question that most of those who I considered "cheerleader vandals" were acting inappropriately, I discovered that it was morally wrong to be prejudice against any user based factors such as activities they are part of or their interests. Similarily, it is wrong, in my opinion, that some label certain users as school vandals, romeo vandals, mentally impaired vandals, etc. When we begin to label vandals in such way, our judgement begins to become inpaired and we may become more aggressive, fail to assume good faith, bite newbies, and otherwise forget the scope of the encyclopedia project due to our own grudge. In a nutshell, we shouldn't allow vandals to continue their malicious practices, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions or assume bad faith either. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems you got a bit of grief for all your good intent too. Might not count for much, but I think you did an alright job. Just remember Hanlon's Razor and Grey's Law. Peace. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

is there any original content here or are we just rehashing policy and guidelines found elsewhere?

It's entirely original actually, inspired by nobody but myself. Others may have had similar ideas, but they had no influence on this article. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to the tone of this essay. Read any of the other essays. None of them sounds so conceded. The content here is nothing more than an authoritative and rude retelling of a few wiki guidelines. By no means should you tell editors that even a major wiki principal is "not optional". Everything stated here is completely self explanatory to even the newest members. It's common sense. The tone you use makes it appear that so called "bad faith" is a rampant problem around here. This seems to agree with your typical over the top responses. Conservapedia might be rubbing off on you a bit. It is obvious that this is a response to earlier issues, issues which you are not supposed to be continuing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to sound cold, but how can you argue about policy and expect to be taken seriously when you're not even signing your posts on this talk page with ~~~~? Just thought I'd point that out. Welcome to Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you addressing my concerns instead of changing the subject. From wikimedia policy: The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You've just further proved my point. Although you may have read some of our policies, you clearly don't have a clear understanding of the basics. I wasn't referring to your IP nature, but rather the fact that you're not properly signing your talk page posts. IPs are supposed to sign too, which is why SineBot adding "—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC) " Again, welcome to Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I know how to sign a post. I'm not using tildes on purpose. I also am curious; in this case, are you feeding the troll, or am I feeding you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather say neither; I see you as someone who originally came to troll and might be reformable into a constructive editor. May I suggest that you create an account (entirely up to you, but usually a wise idea if only to keep people who you get into disagreements with from trying anything "technical" with your IP address, i.e. DDoS attacks, abuse report fraud, etc.). Then, may I suggest you pursue WP:ADOPT. If adopted, your adopter can guide you through the ropes of the project so that you can get a feel for our policies and being a Wikipedian. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that you are very much off the mark on your assumptions, a link posted on my talk page is relevant. Also, this talk page is only for discussing the essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That is so very true even offline, but more so online. However, because I am a Wikipedian, I am assuming good faith, so regardless of your intent, I try to assume that you're salvageble if it's at all plausible. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Morality

There are obvious problems with including "morally wrong" in that it is subjective. Why not stick to asking users to adhere to wiki policy, as you do in the rest of the essay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. I wrote this as a bit of advice for other Wikipedians, not something ironically to be cited in heated debates or a basis to block. Therefore, being firm about policy or implying that doing this is violates Wikipedia's policies would stray from the intent of this essay. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, reinforcing other wiki essays and policy is what this essay seems to do. In two paragraphs, you link to five other pages, and then have a see also section containing six items. You can see why I thought the essay was an attmept to sum up many related guidelines and policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.0.122 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)