User talk:Kangaresearch/Civility

Archived - WP:CIV WP:PA WP:AVOIDYOU WP:RPA (See ArbComm examples at WP:ASPERSIONS) Note primary purpose of user talk page at WP:OWNTALK which is to make communications and collaboration among editors easier and that discretion of removal and or archiving of comments that fail the above rests the editor to whom that user talk page relates to.  Kangaresearch  04:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN and user pages
Please be cognizant that you do not own your user page and cannot attempt to dictate how other users interact with it. Particularly, while it is generally frowned upon for an editor to change a person's user page, changes like the one I made at fix the page because it is invalid HTML. I will reinstate the edit, or some other will reinstate the edit, at some point to ensure your page continues to display as expect. Please revert your reversion there. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Inzo. Please be aware of WP:5P4 and consider that tone and choice of words is important, and unnecessarily engaging in particular stylings can come across as uncivil and unwelcoming (I invite you to refactor your wording, given some of it is potentially libellous). Terms such as dictate imply a negative value judgment about an individual, contrary to expectations of discourse on Wikipedia. Similarly, User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier - not for the making of personal judgment remarks WP:OWNTALK. As per WP:USERTALKBLOG unless the matter is urgent, the best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves.


 * You state it is invalid HTML, but no error is displayed, and the markup is found elsewhere on Wikipedia on long established user pages, one of which this box was copied from. I am happy for you to give explanation of how something unseen is causing an issue though, which is not evident from your fix the page comment. Ownership of any page is not vested in any editor, and any editor may challenge and remove any unannounced edit from their user page and flag it for the usual process of resolution. I note the User Page in question received a positive tick review from Eddie891 5 hrs ago (I assume that is some process it was ran through once you flagged it).


 * He offered some good advice on his user page which seems worth repeating here:


 * 1) Stay calm and maintain a professional demeanor. Be patient and remain courteous and civil.
 * 2) Avoid conflict, even when you know you are right. Give other editors the benefit of the doubt.
 * 3) Assume good faith toward your collaborating editors, if not their edits. Assuming good faith is not intended to be self-destructive, but to avoid conflict.
 * 4) Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offered administrative advice is to move on, and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day.
 * 5) Don't take it personally. Editors make honest mistakes. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet.
 * 6) Don't isolate your interpretation. There are many interpretations other than yours. What you read might NOT be what was meant.
 * 7) Don't think of editing as a competition. WE are cohorts, collaborating to improve our thing.
 * 8) Don't edit when angry or upset. Stay off the article and talk page in question. Never let your anger or frustration be the deciding factor in your behavior.
 * 9) Don't forget the human dimension of Wikipedia editing. Keep things in perspective. There is a real, living and breathing, sensitive human on the other side of the discussion.


 * Thanks for taking the time to stop by. I have asked an uninvolved administrator to also take a look, given the heat of the language and ask you to refrain from making further edits until they have.
 *  Kangaresearch  16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've since fixed the issue that brought me here. You have a few remaining issues (the uses of ), but you are free to correct those yourself given your curious opposition to my original edit. (Someone may be along to correct those as well.) --Izno (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Inzo, I see you are aware the unexplained edits you made under the sole opaque description of lint, which are not identical to mine (made after I received support from an independent HTML5 expert, who rather than taking your approach of not giving any explanation, identified some minor technical formatting issues on putting a few spaces in, that he stated were not urgent or critical, and did not require the mass removal of properties you made that visibly altered the box). You should consider his approach in future, rather than that curious emotional outburst that kicked this off. An independent administrator also disagreed with your interpretation that you were entitled in this case to make an unannounced changes to that user page in these specific circumstances and that another more conciliatory approach should have been used than that opening salvo. As the user page has, as previously mentioned, already been reviewed and approved just before that first emotional comments of this section, and has now been checked by an expert and run through a verifier (and no flags were issued - contradicting these new claims) all steps have been taken to reach a suitable outcome and it is unnecessary for veiled threats, and further uncivil commentary to be made (although I thank for you taking a more measured tone this time than last time). I do encourage you to set a good example for others and consider how your style, tone and choice of language reflects on you and Wikipedia, and how WP:5P4 is a central pillar of Wikipedia practice. All the best.  Kangaresearch   01:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

not deserving
your comments are not really fitting, looks like others have dealt with the issues... JarrahTree 12:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)