Edit Page
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Editors should be civil when stating disagreements. 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 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 opinion", is ''not'' a personal attack. Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be [[GW:AGF|well-intentioned]]. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. |
Editors should be civil when stating disagreements. 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 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 opinion", is ''not'' a personal attack. Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be [[GW:AGF|well-intentioned]]. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. |
||
β | There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments |
+ | There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are ''never'' acceptable: |
*Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. |
*Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. |
||
*Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views β regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. |
*Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views β regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. |