Misplaced Pages

• From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

• In the media: Will you be targeted?

• Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

• Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages

• Opinion: Reflections one score hence

• News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

• Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

• Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages

• In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

• Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

• Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages

• Single page

• Front page
• About
• Subscribe
• Suggestions
• Archives

A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary).

Read more about the exceptions ...

Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

• Overview
• Contents
• Tips

• Accessibility
• Biography
• Disambiguation pages
  • Organizing by subject area
• Gender identity
• Hidden text
• Infoboxes
• Linking
• Self-references
• Words to watch

• Abbreviations
• Capitalization
• Dates and numbers
• Pronunciation
• Spelling
• Text formatting
• Titles of works

• Captions
• Image placement
• Icons
• Images

• Layout
• Lead section
• Tables
• Trivia sections

• Lists
• Lists of works
• Road junctions
• Stand-alone lists

• Article size
• Article titles
• Categories, lists, and navigation templates
• Categorization
• Hatnotes
• Subpages
• Understandability

• Category

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Self-help writing tutorials:

• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Spot the ambiguity
• Build your linking skills
• Using hyphens and dashes
• Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy

edit

Re Signpost

Hey, sorry I couldn't reply earlier, but I had left the country shortly after your reply . I think this type of communication/public activity is risky currently in my country. Bloggers and Tweeps are targeted by the government, see for instance . For someone writing on political articles, I bet they could sentence me to a year on the vague charge of "misusing the right of free expression". Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks augur very badly for the hope of expanding participation in ar.WP. A user group should be named explicitly for a cultural theme. "GLAM Arabic user group"? Tony (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to turn you down, but I still think it's too risky to go public. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have to judge the situation for yourself, but there are some things you can do to minimize your risk. 1) You can still read the newspaper and add information to Misplaced Pages using news sources that are approved in your country. Just stay away from anything they won't print, for example, protests or demonstrations. 2) Don't write about religion. Think Hamza Kashgari. 3) If your writing in the west was at all political, you may want to distance yourself completely from that identity. If you are known by one username, you can disappear with that one and use a different one. See WP:Right_to_disappear, and especially Misplaced Pages:Clean start.

You might also try writing about something that isn't political, like literature or music. How many times have I seen a google doodle that pays tribute to some Arab writer or artist, only to find very little information about them on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes they don't even have an article in Arabic. Look at Category:Arab dramatists and playwrights for example. Or look at Ehab Tawfik. Pitiful. It looks like the Arabic article needs work too. It would also be nice to be able to find poetry and literature in the original Arabic, perhaps with a translation or recording. Neotarf (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Neotarf‚ thanks. I hope this thoughtful advice is helpful to Mohamed and other Arab-speakers ... and even to WMF units dealing with interlinguistic matters. Tony (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The danger is very real, even more so for Muslims, since the charge of apostasy can be added. It is easy for westerners to try to minimize this danger, but in some areas this carries a death penalty, and the exact situations that can trigger official scrutiny are not knowable in advance. But it is precisely because of the censorship, and the risks that people do take to add this information to the Misplaced Pages, that information becomes even more valuable. You might also consider editing with an IP, or from a public WIFI. Neotarf (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My situation has nothing to do with religion, it's purely about politics (which happens to be my favorite area to work at here). If the situation improves, then I'm more than ready to participate in publicly advocating for Misplaced Pages. Just yesterday a 17-year-old boy was sentenced to 1 year for "insulting the king on twitter" and he wasn't even using his real name. There was an era here when it was relatively safe to express your opinion, but it didn't last long. The best I can hope for currently is to continue to do what I do unhindered. Thanks to both of you for advises and I'm sorry if it was a disappointment. P.S. Editing from an IP is equivalent to publicly identifying yourself. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• So much for the Arab spring. Tony (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • To say nothing of Umm Kulthum. Will we never see the Arabic language lyrics to the immortal Hadahi laylati? Can't you all basically just edit from McDonald's? Neotarf (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Per your query "Unsure why this wasn't a legitimate comment in this context." That comment was directed solely about my conduct, and was correctly moved to my user talk page. It has no place whatsoever on the article talk page. See WP:FOC and WP:NPA (both policies). If we remove the parts that are out of place, we have:

Apteva, yes, there are a lot of things you fail to see about wikipedia article naming. Why do you press for such changes, given that your views are so out of step with the how titling work here? How can want to move a title that is just precise enough to say what the article topic is to one that is ridiculously ambiguous? How can you interpret the popularity of this article as an indication that it is named wrong? Your logic makes no sense.

Leaving us with absolutely nothing. We are not to use article talk pages to either berate or praise editors. That is what user talk pages are for. We are not to attack others for their arguments, they are their arguments. We can explain our own arguments, we can disagree with the arguement, but not express it as differing with an individual, and if we have a question about the argument, we ask it of the argument, not the editor, or the group, not the editor. Your use of @Apteva, for example, was completely inappropriate, and never done in a threaded discussion (the only use is for example in WP:AE discussions where threaded discussions are forbidden). Use a diff if you need to to explain what you are referring to, not an editors username, and definitely not the word "you". We need to find a way to get the editor in question to "sit up and act straight", and not be encouraging their personal attacks. It is really not that hard to write sentences that do not include the word "you". Just focus on the topic and not on the editor. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm guilty as charged concerning the occasional praising of editors on article talk pages. I did it only last week, and it seems to have a positive effect on my and their morale, and social cohesion. Why not respond to Dick's critical comment there instead of scrubbing his text? I think he has a point. Tony (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it detracts from the purpose, which is consensus development, or more generally, coming to a decision. There are basically two types of collaborative decision making, parliamentary and consensus, and neither ever allow directing comments to or about the participants. Here is what a summary of Roberts Rules of Order says: "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!" If the editor in question has a point about the naming they are welcome to express it, but it must be devoid of personal attacks. The place to either criticise or praise an editor is on their talk page, and we do need to encourage as much praise (wikilove) as possible, to make all of us feel welcome here. Praising an individual editor in a discussion has the affect that it is exclusionary and a diversion from the topic at hand.

It is never appropriate to reply to inappropriate remarks, as that is just adding an additional inappropriate remark (don't feed the trolls). The only exception is if there are a large number of editors participating inappropriately, and then a short reminder is made simply to stay on topic, and is never directed to any specific editor or editors. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'm forbidden from saying nice things about editors. Right. Tony (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. Just place them on their talk page, where they belong. The other place they can occur is if that editor and only that editor is being discussed at AN, etc. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'm forbidden from saying nice things about editors on article talk pages—for example, when I think they've been doing a fine job. Tony (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not if you want to be helpful. It is exclusionary, and does not contribute to the discussion at hand. That is why comments are always directed to the group and about the topic, instead of to and about participants. Parliamentary procedures and consensus decision making both follow the same rules on the issue and for the same reason – it works, and the opposite does not work. Consensus decision making is not new, having been around for about 400 years, although it originated because the thought was there was only one correct decision, and the process existed solely to find out what that was, with the idea that initially only one person might have that correct answer. Today we use it for a completely different reason, so that we can be more inclusive of all participants. Parliamentary decision making is much newer, but is about 200 years old now. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Threaded discussions on policy or article talk pages are often long and confusing especially if it is heated. More is the case especially when the discussion thread fragments, and other respondents either don't indent properly. In such cases, markers like "@Apteva" are not only desirable but I'd say was indispensable to identify the party to whom one is responding. One can be concerned with discussions with any mention of "you" or one's username, but IMHO, it's highly possible and probable that this objection on the part of some is verging on the paranoid. ;-) -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 03:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• And please don't get me going on about parliamentary procedures. There is an editor at WN who insists on referring to Misplaced Pages as "the other place", much to my annoyance. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Diff's can be used if necessary, but no responses are never to a particular editor, and only about a particular argument. Parliamentary is important to bring up because it is the only other method of collaborative decision making that exists, to my knowledge. If discussions are getting heated, that in itself is a problem. Markers like that are necessary at WP:AE where threaded discussion is not permitted, but are never appropriate in a threaded discussion. Some editors are far more sensitive than others about personalization, and the solution is to never do it, so that no one is offended. Apteva (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm all for trying to keep things collegiate and not descend into the personal realms. "but are never appropriate in a threaded discussion" – I think that's where we part company. Markers are ubiquitous in many different discussions. do not need to go far to find them in RfCs AfDs, where people habitually use the construction as substitute for restating the entire rationale. Now Notifications gives us positive reason to use the markers either as pings or links to draw the attention of the other editor. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • So a "personal attack" is now defined as "any sentence that contains the word 'you' or an editor's name"? That interpretation doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction in some quarters. I see also Apteva is using other editors' sigs again, in this case making it look like Dicklyon posted something in a place where he did not post it. Neotarf (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I seem to remember there was an ANI on exactly that premise, but the plaintiff received a boomerang instead of the gratification sought. So, no, there is traction at all. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 07:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about personal attacks, but is about keeping conversations on topic in order to build consensus. Our advice about using the word you, though, WP:AVOIDYOU, does appear on the NPA page, which points out that "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." That boomerang was one of Misplaced Pages's stupidest ever blocks. Thinking that notifications is a justification for naming an editor is absolutely absurd, and is just plain illogical. No matter how many times someone sees an editor named in a threaded discussion, RfCs, AfDs, they are all totally inappropriate and the practice needs to end. Apteva (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Er, "stupid" is but your opinion. keep on launching ANIs like that one, and chances are it's going to come back and hit like a boomerang every time. "the practice needs to end". I would wish you every luck in making that happen. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 14:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Right now the issue of civility enforcement is being discussed in an RfC, and we will need to see what the result is when it is closed, which could be years from now. Apteva (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So the next time anyone gets the urge to thank someone in a threaded discussion, please do it on their talk page instead. The results are infinitely more better. Although I suspect the grammar of that sentence is somewhat lacking. Apteva (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• How about this for a response to your general order to the community: no.

  The trouble is, Apteva, that "keeping conversations on topic to build consensus" seems to mean to build the consensus that you want. This might be why so many editors come away upset after interactions with you (oops, I used the banned word, or is "you" ok on my talk page?). This is especially true of structured environments such as RMs, where you have at times employed fairly aggressive tactics to get your way. "one of Misplaced Pages's stupidest ever blocks"—in the larger scheme, I'm not sure I agree.

  I see that you've again reverted Dicklyon's comment—one that I don't believe is inappropriate. Tony (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, the word you works on user talk pages, which are more like a conversation and the purpose is rarely collaborative decision making. And no it has nothing to do with my position, but is solely an expression of how to work together. As I mentioned, these principles are 400 years old now. They are very new to a lot of people, who have never been involved with any form of collaborative decision making, though. Apteva (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't believe Dicklyon's comment is at all inappropriate. But, in light of WP:HARRASSMENT I would question whether continually posting on someone's talk page after they have asked you not to post there might be interpreted as baiting. In fact, under the circumstances, the latter looks like a bit of grave dancing. Neotarf (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know Tony, ignore Apteva. Saying something nice is recommended on this project - after all, Misplaced Pages is a community. Yes, we comment on content not the contributor, but saying "that's great wording, Bob ..." is a comment on the content. See Apteva's talkpage for more about how wrong his bizarre edits suggesting otherwise are (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Inglok#Grammar

Tony - have you heard of this construction...I often drop "the" in this scenario....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

• In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Misplaced Pages editing

• Featured content: Queen of France

• WikiProject report: Puppies!

• News and notes: Misplaced Pages's medical collaborations gathering pace

• Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more

• Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series

• Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Misplaced Pages views

• Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James H. McClure may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Daily Mail]] as a sub-editor. From there, he moved to the '']'' and then to the ''''.