User:Sophie/Spoken/6

Coding for spoken page 6
Wikipedia, no self attacks, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, at E, N, dot, wikipedia,.org.

\Pau=500\

Do not make self-directed attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.. er, yourself. Self-directed attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community in the sense that it confuses the hell out of them, and deters users from helping to create a good encyclopedia, due to excessive confusion. Derogatory comments about yourself must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute attacks, and may be removed by any editor who isn't already perplexed. Repeated or egregious self-directed attacks may lead to an intervention.

\Pau=500\Section 1, What is considered a self attack\Pau=500\..

Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Debating with oneself, however, is not. Different contributors often do not agree on some of the content within an article, though it is rare for an editor to both agree and disagree on the same topic. Contributors are often members of opposing communities who wish to have their viewpoints included in articles, though usually not in both camps simultaneously..

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette, when stating disagreements. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to yourself is not always a self attack, though excessive referring to yourself is liable to get you a few strange looks. A posting that says "My statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph I inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a self attack, merely very, very odd,, unless of course you are revisiting the edits you made as a newbie.

The appropriate response to such statements is to ask if the person is crazy. Accusing yourself without justification of making self attacks is also considered a form of self attack. (See also: Engaging in incivility.)

\Pau=500\Section 1 point 1, Self attacks\Pau=500\..

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a self attack, as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable, eg,

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against yourself. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse..

Using your own affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting your own views, ,regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream..

Pointing out your own relevant conflict of interest is not a self attack, though speculating on the real life identity of yourself may constitute outing, a serious offense when done by someone else. done by yourself, not so much..

Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking yourself..

Accusations about your own behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users..

Threats, including:

Threats of legal action against yourself..

Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats, since that'd kind of be like threatening to commit suicide)..

Threats of vandalism to user pages, or talk pages, though really, if you want to post giant penis pictures on your own user page,, uh, sure, I guess..

Threats or actions which deliberately expose yourself to political, religious or other persecution by government, your employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, and lots of pointless discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, about how you've totally flipped out..

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging yourself is a self attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to yourself at all..

The prohibition against self attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to note that you have a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even poke fun at yourself about having been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack yourself. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Self attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia,, somehow, I'm sure.

\Pau=500\Section 2, Responding to self-directed attacks\Pau=500\..

\Pau=500\Section 2, point 1, Initial options\Pau=500\..

Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated self-directed attack is not to respond at all,, yeah, wrap your head around that one. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally over react. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text -only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding when talking to yourself. While self attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of their own when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia and ignore the voices in their head..

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message to yourself; a post-it note on your bathroom mirror is a good idea, though make sure to remove it before company comes over, otherwise they will promptly leave out of fear. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational with yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground with yourself. Remember, since you are you, you have lots of common interests with yourself..

Self attacks do not include civil language used to describe your own actions, and when made without involving your personal character, should not be construed as self attacks, for instance, stating "My statement is a self attack..." is not itself a self attack..

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported for ridicule on the administrators' noticeboard.

\Pau=500\Section 2, point 2, Recurring attacks\Pau=500\..

Recurring, non-disruptive self attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should not be resolved through the dispute resolution process; instead, see a therapist about your self-esteem issues. Especially when self attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are equally useless in resolving the conflict; seriously, you need to get help. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion, in case you want total strangers to agree that, yes, you are completely loco..

This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that you are willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack themselves (or they would have been defined as both attackers and nutballs) because they want and expect strong discourse.

\Pau=500\Section 2, point 3, Removal of text\Pau=500\..

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most self attacks should be removed, primarily because it hasn't been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable self attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern, outside of the fact that people will wonder what you're tripping out on. On other talk pages, especially where your own text is directed against yourself, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true self attack..

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist... for instance, self-directed attacks. The most serious types of self attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about yourself, go beyond the level of mere invective and veer straight into the realm of the truly bizarre, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community's sanity. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate, and lets the people that deal with loads of crap have a good laugh.

\Pau=500\Section 2, point 4, Off-wiki attacks\Pau=500\..

Not a damn thing we can do about you swearing at yourself. Seriously, that's just all kinds of messed up.

\Pau=500\Section 2, point 5, External links\Pau=500\..

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking yourself is... never acceptable, I think. Honestly, it's never happened, so there's no telling. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of yourself sounds like the sort of thing that would not be permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite self attacks, privacy violations, and, /, or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment..

The interpretation of this rule is complex, due to the fact that just writing this essay has made my brain hurt, so I can barely imagine what reading it does. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.

\Pau=500\Section 3, Consequences of self attacks\Pau=500\..

Everyone will think you are crazy,.

Everyone,.

Seriously.

\Spd=125\This is the End of the article.\Pau=550\\Spd=130\ At the time of recording, the text in this sound file are licenced under the Creative Comons, Attribution, Share-Alike License. \Pau=250\ The sound file is licensed under the Creative comons, Attribution, 3 point o license..