User talk:DaeafcMnnC

ĐfċĤĜ talk page, please leave new messages below.

take it easy

NOTICE : personal attacks and/or threatening message will NOT be READ but directly and fastly deleted and/or removed and even reported as a harassment and/or threatening to the noticeboard committee so don't wast you time writing it it will NOT be read!

two things keep in mind:
 * Avoid personal attacks
 * NO threatening!

article expanded
the article that i expand, you can talk here instead of the articles talk unless it is important--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

article expanded 2
Focus on article content during discussions it is important--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

others
Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

Focusing on content, and not bringing up conduct, can be difficult if it seems other editors are being uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below; but at no juncture should you lose your temper. Wikipedia is not like the rest of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

also
Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. Taking a deep breath and sleeping on it often helps. You can always return to the discussion later, but at least you will return without an inflamed temper.

Take a long-term view of the situation. You will probably be able to return and carry on editing an article when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. The disputed article will continue to evolve, other editors may become interested, and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again. Even if your position on the article is not accepted, it might be in the future.

Disengaging is particularly helpful when in dispute with new users, as it gives them a chance to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and culture. There are 5,015,629 articles on Wikipedia. Focus your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks
Why personal attacks are harmful

Contributors often wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. Avoiding personal attacks

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. However, "The statement..." or "The paragraph inserted..." is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack because it avoids referring to the other editor in the second person. "The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research" is especially advantageous because the DIFF cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

discussion guidelines
Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus. Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it. hare material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial. Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale. Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE : personal attacks and/or threatening message will NOT be READ but directly and fastly deleted and/or removed and even reported as a harassment and/or threatening to the noticeboard committee so don't wast you time writing it it will NOT be read!

Request for clarification
Can you explain why you removed another editor's message from User talk:Raushivam12105422? Unless there is an exceptionally good reason, you should not do that: continuing to do so may lead to being blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. OK, I now see the answer to my question above. You have been stalking edits by WilliamThweatt, reverting them indiscriminately, including removing his talk page posts, and even restoring vandalism which he had reverted, as at Undulatus asperatus. I assume this is in revenge for some action that you didn't like: however, people who go in for that sort of childish harassment are not welcome here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

November 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Neil N  talk to me 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that continuing the harassment or disruption after your block expires will result in a long term reblock. --Neil N  talk to me 17:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)