Wiki conventions
From DoWire Wiki
Contents |
Troll-friendly
Summary: avoid inquiring into identity, speculating about motive, complaining about 北京办证users' style or the seriousness (grave or flippant) of their comments. Do not assume, no matter how outrageous, that what a user claims to believe, they do not "really" believe.
Above all, do not let one group of users label any other group of users with any label that they then use as if it were a fact to argue to exclude them.
To keep the wiki fresh, respect the unfamiliar but necessarily new troll point of view that comes in with each wave of new users.
I...he...we...they: depersonalizing the wiki articles
Forming a group means gradually changing from thinking as an I in front of a he/she, to thinking in a we-format. It is a proces of depersonalizing. I (Alle van Meeteren 06:51, 29 Dec 2004 (PST)) has a proposal for a procedure in this wiki to formalize this proces.
Every page has an accompanying page for the discussion. The page itself has to have in my (AvM) opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate without using the first person. And it is cumbersome 北京办证to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
My (AvM) proposal is that the first one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we', followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the 北京办证proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a group with the same opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one 办证of the groups.
Then starts a process of a 'we' in front of 'they'. If that occurs we have to find a good democratic way for the solution of this opposite standpoints. But only if it is a fundamental question that parts us. solution
Example 1: neutral
Alle has a proposal for a procedure in this wiki. He thinks it is a good and powerful procedure, once we know how to use it.
Every page has an accompanying 办证page for the discussion. The page itself has to have in his opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate without using the first person. And it is cumbersome to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
Alle's proposal is that the first one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we', followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the 办证proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a group with the same opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one of the 办证groups.
Example 2: accord
We (AvM, NN) have a proposal for a procedure in this wiki. We think it is a good and powerful procedure, once we know how to use it. So, we beg you, try it.
Every page has an accompanying page for the discussion. The page itself has to have in our opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate without using the first person. And it is cumbersome to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
Our proposal is that the first 翻译公司one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we', followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a group which shares an opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one 神墓of the groups.
Example 2b: a third person is accord
We have a procedure in this wiki to form groups round meanings, opinions and the like.
Every page has an accompanying page for the discussion. The page itself has to have in our opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate 北京纸箱厂ithout using the first person. And it is cumbersome to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
The first one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we', followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a 英语翻译 group which shares an opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one of the groups.
Example 2c: Someone is surprised by the quick decision of three persons.
We have a procedure in this wiki to form groups round meanings, opinions and the like.
Every page has an accompanying page for the discussion. The page itself has 北京翻译公司 to have in our opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate without using the first person. And it is cumbersome to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
The first one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we',北京四合院 followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a group which shares an opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one of the groups.
I (NN) ask to reconsider this procedure. We are all freshmen in a wiki, but I visited Wikipedia, and did see anything like this. What is the problem that you -I-deleters - think to tackle?
Example 3: not accord
Alle has a proposal for a 四合院 procedure in this wiki. He thinks it is a good and powerful procedure, once we know how to use it.
I (NN) thinks it is unnecessary complex.
Every page has an accompanying page for the discussion. The page itself has to have in Alle's opinion, as few 'I's and my's' as possible. But, it is difficult to formulate without using the first person. And it is cumbersome to decide when a discussion is ripe for a transport to the headpage.
The talk-page is designed for discussion, not the headpage. We need a good procedure for the transportation. I (NN) that is a task for Steven, being the initiator of this Wiki, or else there has to be a good democratic procedure.
Alle's proposal is that the 北京四合院first one who finds an 'I ' on a headpage changes it in a he/she formule, if it was a neutral sentence or he himself does not have an opinion.
In my (NN) proposal there will be no 'I' on a headpage.
If he is accord with the point of the former 'I", he does change the 'I", in a 'we', followed by his initials.
If he is not accord with the proposition of the 'I', he changes the 'I' in a 'he/she', and makes his point in a following 'I' sentence.
If somewone finds a 'we' 分水器followed by two initials, and he is accord with the proposal, he removes the initials. There is a group with the same opinion. If there are groups with opposing feelings about a subject, we look for a good naming of the oppositing groups. Every 'we' in that discussion, has to be followed by the name of one of the groups.
spelling
Task for a native english speaker
Every single one of the categories on the Brief List have to be rewritten to conserve capitals and to avoid unnecessary invention of new terms like "E-Consultation".
Use of capitals
In English, only proper画册印刷 names and well defined terms in legalese are capitalized within titles. It becomes literally impossible to link to these things intelligently unless lowercase is used consistently everywhere. See wikipedia for some thoughts about captitals in general, and for capitals in headings
Source of names
See Wikipediafor good naming conventions. If it has a name there, use that name, rather than inventing a new one. You will not be re-inventing the 手提袋印刷400,000-phrase namespace they have worked out, nor translating it into 100 languages, so re-use it. This is listed above as a best practice - the GFDL corpus namespace (Wikipedia is in GFDL).
Remark form Alle (17 Dec 2004)
As a not-native speaker of the English language, it costs me more energy to use that language. I apologize for the mistakes, I certainly make. But I hope that they will be corrected by someone who is born in the English conventions, and/or who knows them very well. I think that is part of our collaboration.不干胶印刷