Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khukri (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 2 October 2011 (move TB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Templates for deletion .. re wp:npa

I'm pretty shocked about the number of attacks on the person who made the nominations, especially that the initial comment was a pretty clear ad hominem attack by User:Saravask which went almost totally unoticed. And the number of people who commented but don't appear to have even read the nominators rational, or the red text on Template:Cquote which clearly states not to use for quotes, and the number of editors who (from their comments) haven't even bothered to find out what a pull quote is.

Yes, editors have a right to create new style protocols through consensus, and I think the deleted nomination was misguided. What is really disappointing is that nobody had the balls to say "hey, I was adding the template because it thought it looked good and trying to make the article I was working on look great, I had no idea it was supposed to be only for pull quotes.." - but I'm long in the tooth enough to know that this is the explanation for many of the good faith additions of this template.

The argument that this article (Pull quote) is "confusing and difficult to understand" doesn't hold any water - it's just another example of "not my fault - I can't hear your arguments" mentality where every error is someone elses fault.

At some point editors need to find out just how unacceptable their behaviour actually is in real life - the original comment by User:67.101.5.104 is essentially vile, sarcastic and cowardly. quote: " the editing community would be better off if Gadget850 spent time improving the short and reference-free article on pull quotes, so that editors and readers alike could be enlightened by his proscriptive understanding of the topic." That's a personal attack - essentially a taunt using sarcasm. Any real person can see that/

If you can propose a way of demonstrating to these people that impolite behaviour (on the internet) is just as bad as doing it in real life (without sinking to their level) - I'd would like to hear it. I'm sick of having to read the disfunctional crap people spout (more often than not in !vote opportunities). I don't want to insult people, but I don't want to be exposed to people acting like total asshats either.. (Sorry for the rant) Imgaril (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Imgaril, Thank you for your measured reply. I fully appreciate your frustration when dealing with editors who do not have the same values as yourself. But as you say resorting to their level will never win and I apologies if you think I singled you out, I only scan read the discussions and yours stood out from the mire so to speak for the wording of your response. I fully agree that the subject needs to be discussed in greater detail and if you look at my response I specifically mentioned that if editors value it's inclusion on purely aesthetic value then that is something that should be discussed and is in my opinion not a reason that cannot be discussed. I just felt that TFD is not the correct place for it and the should be discussed in detail at possibly MOS, and certainly the documentation should be re-written to clearly describe each templates correct usage. No problems for the rant I've had far worse and less eloquent. Regards 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)