Wikipedia talk:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values

Userboxen
Anyone interested in the idea of an Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values userbox that'd link back to the page? --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See if you like this one: --Dianna (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very much! Thank you. Anyone who understands how to do these things is welcome to bung one of these on my userpage in an appropriate place. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, On the main page's copy of our userbox, I centered the text and added a break, as it seemed more elegant (at least to me) to have the 'Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values' all on the second line. However, please feel free to revert me if any of you preferred it as it was before (in the good ol' days... ). With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very nice, thank you. And how kind of you to take the trouble to explain, . --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome, Dweller, and thank you for launching this initiative, at the time. By the way, have you considered including this userbox in the Gallery, perhaps in the Civility subsection? I daresay it would be more visible if added there and, in turn, your initiative would achieve more traction. It's just a thought, offered for your consideration.
 * (I'd be honoured to implement the required changes, should you decide to proceed with this idea.)
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅! Here is our new userbox page, its talk page, and its proud inclusion in the Gallery. If you have any requests for changes, however trivial, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you for entrusting me with this most pleasant task.
 * With kindest regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The ping didn't work, at least not for me. You may wish to notify the users manually :/ And thank you very much for getting this done. — Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Diannaa,
 * Thank you for letting me know about the ping failure in your case; it's difficult to understand why that might be – especially since your name was listed in second place, out of courtesy to you as the userbox creatrix. Each ping template listed five usernames (and therefore less than the maximum allowable of seven per ping template) and I certainly haven't issued 50 pings today. In any case, I'll follow your suggestion and inform each user individually, although it'll have to wait till tomorrow, as it's after 10pm here on the West Coast of Wales, and it's time for zzzz... Thank you for your kind appreciation and, above all, for creating our very nice userbox in the first place, Diannaa.
 * With kindest regards;
 * Patrick. 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Patrick. 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Another pledge
I think we should add another pledge, number 5: I will not shamelessly make misuse of the pledges made by other editors. ) Debresser (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone's done anything like that, follow pledge 4. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Page title and MOS
and : I think this should be at Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values. The hyphen is a good point, but the capitalization in each word is quite intentional, I believe. Much like the "A Good Thing" in the nutshell, it emphasizes that they are "a thing." I'll also add that the manual of style is for articles, not projectspace. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 00:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I was a tad over eager to capitalise this correctly and if MOS is only meant for article space then I'm fine for someone to revert my move. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone and done this, thanks. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

,, , thank you for handling this so splendidly while I've been rather less active. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Userbox tweak
I tweaked the userbox slightly for my own page. I don't know how to make it short and pretty, here it is if anyone would be willing/able to do that in case this version is preferred by anyone else: valereee (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (for those that, like me, took a while to see it, the difference is saying adhere to rather than return to) I rather like it! The one by User:Pdebee uses   and   for the styling. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Here is it with those changes:


 * valereee (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * valereee (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear and ;

Thank you; it's very nice to have another variant. Also, our grateful thanks go to, who initially designed and created the original version of our lovely userbox; I then simply centered the second line and, more recently, added the hyphen to "Old-Fashioned". By the way, I still like the notion of returning to old-fashioned Wikipedia values, especially since there never was a time when such values existed, as was pointed out so wittily by, our esteemed project leader.

With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values demand that I thank you all profusely and welcome a proliferation of userbox variations. May wholesale kindness flourish! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And they demand that I apologize for any implication that the tweak was a criticism; it was only a personal preference! :D valereee (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Consider switching the image to the modified version with "rose-coloured glasses". — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 06:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)




 * Dear ,


 * Thank you so much for pointing this out to me; I had no idea. It's now ✅, here, and the fix will be picked up automatically by all the editors who use that template.


 * With kindest regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Chinatowns in Toronto
Hi there. I nuked your edit to Chinatowns in Toronto but should have dropped you a note first. I looked at the boundaries of Steeles, Toronto, and neither of the sources mentioned it (the Star article's title was about the "Dragon Centre", which on a map looks far south of the Steeles neighbourhood). I looked on street view and there's a plethora of Chinese restaurants, so feel free to revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677, it's pretty obvious you've misplaced this post.— Diannaa (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to leave the message on User:Valereee's talk page, then started reading about "old-fashioned values" on her talk page, the whole time thinking how much I'd love some Chinese food. Thanks for messaging me! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , hahahahhaha! :) I appreciated the heads up about the Scarborough Chinatown, I'm working with another editor on Steeles, Toronto which was nearly completely unsourced. It's a 90% Chinese/Hong Kong immigrant area, so it seemed reasonable that it was part of this Chinatown, but I'm finding it may simply be Chinatown-adjacent. I've tagged that statement that it's part of that Chinatown as cn. Articles about unfamiliar neighborhoods are so tricky. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning
The pledges here seem to the the same as those who practice sealioning. That is, adhering to these pledges when facing a sealioner doesn't lead to a good end.

Just an observation. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments by anyone who is sealioning.
 * If you feel that you are somehow compelled to read comments by trolls and that following old-fashioned Wikipedian values is cramping your style when responding, you only have yourself to blame; silence is an under-rated option when dealing with difficult people of all kinds.
 * If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Guy, the point you seem to have missed is that sealioners don't leave you alone once you've attracted their attention. This has nothing to do with being tied to a chair.
 * My point still stands that the pledges are compatible with sealioning, and in fact they describe one who engages in sealioning. A pledge to refrain from being a pest is conspicuously absent. One can always elect not to converse with a sealioner after you identify that's who you're dealing with, but behaving just like a sealioner toward a sealioner is like having two Siris talking to each other. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, the irony. — Ched (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's fair to say this is "behaving like a sealioner." I think it's probably more accurate that sealioners are disingenuously behaving like this. —valereee (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "the point you seem to have missed is that sealioners don't leave you alone once you've attracted their attention" I don't think I missed the point at all. How are they "not leaving you alone"? Are they posting to your talk page after you asked them to stop? Go to ANI and get them blocked. Are they pinging you or emailing you? Those can both be disabled in your preferences. Are they responding to your comments on an article talk page? Don't read those responses. If they keep it up go to ANI and seek an interaction ban. Are they showing up outside your house with a bullhorn? Call the cops.
 * You are feeding the trolls because you like feeding the trolls, not because feeding the trolls is an effective method of dealing with trolls. It isn't. They feed on attention, even negative attention. Take away their food and they will grow weary of shouting into an empty room and go elsewhere to get the attention they so desperately crave.
 * "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

Responding just encourages them! \             >')              ( \               ^^`


 * Nothing about silence is incompatible with Old-fashioned Wikipedian values. Old-fashioned Wikipedian values do not require you to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I lost track of this thread I started and forgot about it. I appreciate the rebuttals; good points, and well taken. However, the point I made in my second comment still stands: These pledges sound exactly like those a sealioner would make, and in making these pledges the sealioner isn't pledging to refrain from being a pest. Therefore, I feel that an additional pledge should be added to the list. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome
I (obviously) appreciate the sentiment here. But after reading it several times, I find I just can't align with #4. I think it's great to welcome newbies. But welcoming an editor in response to "X" actually seems incivil to me. (Especially if it involves huge talk page templates, in response to "X").

I'm trying to think how it could be re-written, but not certain which way would be better. besides, with all the signatures below, making any significant change wouldn't be a great idea.

So I guess the easiest form of action is to leave it unsigned.

I do appreciate the sentiment though : ) - jc37 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the very very belated response, . I think you've misread #4. It's about being open to other people's criticising, not about how to welcome newbies. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Old-fashioned?
"Old-fashioned" might have negative connotations to some, implying obsolescence, being antiquated, or having a stubborn resistance to change.

Maybe "Traditional Wikipedian values" would be a better name for this page? "Traditional" I think better conveys the idea that the tenets of the pledge are things that Wikipedians have historically practiced and are worth carrying on. These are not some antiquated values that the old-schoolers cling to out of a wistful longing for a bygone era, which "old-fashioned" may convey.

I can live with "Old-fashioned," btw. Just floating the idea. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you. I had a similar conversation with my kids this week about the brand name Old Spice. It's clear that the adjective "Old" is becoming a negative today when once it wasn't. I was looking for values of harking back to days when something was traditional, much like the word 'renaissance' does. Looking back at the very early RfAs on this site, it's clear that once upon a time Wikipedia was a less fractious environment. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Spelling change Apologise to Apologize
I am asking the group if I can change the spelling of the word "apologise" to "apologize" (American English) for the pledge. ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) ♥ 02:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The guy who started the page is from the UK. I personally am from Canada, where we are renowned for our apologies. We use the British spelling (but not exclusively). — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Horrors! --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)