Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,236:
:::::Must agree with StuRat, Friday. I know you mean well. It is possible to have "good sense" (thanks Clio) about some things but not others. Strengths and weaknesses, we all have them. -[[User:THB|THB]] 05:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Agree with StuRat, Friday, as to your sense of disruption not tracking 100 % with mine. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This all seems needlessly complicated. I think StuRat's attempts are a good try, but this whole process seems to be so much more detailed, and so much more picky, than it should be, no? I totally understand that one person's idea of humour is different from another, and I totally agree that racism, ageism, etc can be as offensive as sexism. I am also (as I have said before) not a deletionist, but when editors are so attached to our contributions it makes anything less unworkable. I think the simple rule should be, if it is a) ''off-topic'', and b) ''offensive to someone'', it should be subject to editing or removal. We should ''never'', EVER be fighting to retain an off-topic comment that is offensive to someone. Not here. THAT goes against the purpose of the project. I think we can simplify this by saying, 'Off-topic contributions that are offensive or disruptive may be edited or removed.' Then we don't have to bicker about what constitutes humour, what constitutes off-colour humour, ''if it offends someone, it's offensive''. But only if it's off-topic. That's my opinion. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with the idea that, if one person finds something offensive, then it is. There are people who would find any talk about sex to be offensive, others who find any discussion of evolution offensive, etc. Therefore, we can't let one individual dictate what is and is not offensive, this should be decided by consensus. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 13:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
== Im Westen Nichts Neues ==
|