Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:We are not as dumb as you think we are

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essay

[edit]

Sorry yes this is an essay, I have never tried it before sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is good, I like it! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs work I feel.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Occult Threat warranting its own section is gold. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if it should be included, but lacking is other threats of harm (WP:911). —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi @Slatersteven:,

I'm not sure about the most recent changes to legal. The WMF does get MLAT requests from actions taken in other courts, as well as some very high profile more general civil cases (e.g. the Swedish copyright case that went all the way to their supreme court). In the process of pithy, we shouldn't risk being inaccurate Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Whilst Wikipedia will take notice of properly formed and correctly delivered legal notices posting legal threats in talk space will very rarely (If ever) achieve little more than making you look silly, and will result in you getting a ban. What it will not do is scare anyone."?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Notwithstanding a block/ban tweak) that's fairly reasonable. Perhaps something like "Whilst Wikipedia has a Foundation that will review genuine and serious legal notices; posting threats in talk page will very rarely (if ever) achieve little more than making you look silly, and will result in you getting a block. What it will not do is scare anyone. Ever." ? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humo(u)r

[edit]

On a large social site, the mods had a motto "SN [that was us] can be funnier than any troll". Yesyes, very amusing, but we've seen that one (and you) before - Byee! as we clicked the suspend account button. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting this as an addition?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

While I appreciate that bluffing can be a good strategy, I think too many editors are tipping their hand for this particular bluff to work. In spite of my using edit summaries considerably more often than the average editor, more than once I've had some variation of the following conversation on a WP talk page:

  • [experienced editor]: "Hey Martin, would you mind using edit summaries on all your edits so that I don't have to check the content of the edit?"
  • Martin IIIa: "I have to break it to you, but checking edit summaries is not an effective substitute for viewing the content of edits. Editors making bad faith edits aren't always stupid enough to spell out exactly what they're doing in their edit summary, and editors doing accidental harm (such as breaking infobox code or making typos in crucial figures) never mention this in the edit summary."
  • [experienced editor]: "Well yes, I suppose that's true, but I still can't be bothered to check the content of edits."

Martin IIIa (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use Navigation popups to quickly check the content against the edit summary only if I don't recognize the user name. I also have my watchlist display colors for potentially problematic edits. For user names I recognize (typically because they are experienced editors also) I don't bother checking the content unless there's a dispute or warring going on. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:We_are_not_as_dumb_as_you_think_we_are&oldid=1243883315"