Wikipedia talk:An uncivil environment is a poor environment

Rationale

You don't seem to understand my point Jav43. An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not condusive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If users are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.

If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the 'right' answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parites, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing editors who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.

So, 'crying to the playground moderators' is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.

— --Localzuk23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Diff --I liked that so much I thought I'll would be bold. I refactored slightly to decontextualize for an essay.--Cerejota 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

• User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)