User:2422889236x

Inclusionist philosophy
I believe in an inclusionist philosophy on Wikipedia. It is OK for an article to start from humble beginnings. That is how it will develop. Good articles start with non-ideal sources (student newspapers, blog articles, etc). That content can act as a placeholder. The article will then develop. Then better references are found. Editors create just the basic framework of an article. Then the intention of coming back to fill it in later, or for others to do so is what Wikipedia is here for.

Underdeveloped articles are under construction. Lend a hand, don't tear down! A building, like an article, takes time to build. Imagine if a building were constantly ripped apart? Goals would never be accomplished. The goal is to build rather than tear down.

The zeal of deletionists to AfD new articles and articles that are under construction is stifling. In the first few minutes of creating an article, an AfD is often slapped on the article, while in the process of adding references! WP editors: to avoid having an article deleted, work on the article "offline" in your WP sandbox, and only put it on the real WP page when it is ready, with lots of Reliable Sources as references.

Dispute resolution
When Wikipedians dispute content, this results in continual edits to an article - this is called Edit Warring A semi-formal dispute resolution process is appropriate in such circumstances. Raise these issues in Wikipedia's community forums. See for example the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. These are there to address content falling under their respective areas. Also seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a request for comment.

Edit summary dos and don'ts
Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them.


 * Do
 * Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly.
 * Use neutral language.
 * Be calm.


 * Don't
 * Make snide comments.
 * Make personal remarks about editors.
 * Be aggressive.

Incivility
Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness. Disrespectful comments. When done in an aggressive manner, these alienate editors. They disrupt. They're unproductive, stress inducing and create conflict. A minor incident of incivility, that no one complains about is not necessarily a concern. A continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. Repeated harassment or personal attacks result in the user being blocked. A single act of incivility can result in a block. A single episode of verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor. A threat against another person.

In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. When others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Ignoring isolated examples of incivility, or simply moving forward is the proper response. Point out gently that the comment might be considered uncivil. Make it clear that you want to focus on the content. The editor does not know he or she was being uncivil. Incivility is never intentional. Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. dispute resolution (see below) is only for when there is an ongoing problem that will not cease.

No personal attacks or harassment
Avoid personal attacks. Avoid Harassment of other Wikipedians. All Wikipedians. Unacceptable, to attack a user who has a history of foolish behaviour. One who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee. Any user. Attack NO ONE. No legal threats. Promote a positive online community. All make mistakes. Encourage. Learn from mistakes. Change. Personal attacks, harassment damage to the work of building an encyclopedia. They result in blocks. B'H.