Doveofsymplegades

So what? What's your point? I ain't dealing with harassment here genius 😒

== communication ==

•  Oppose The idea, as it stands now, is much too vague. You have only given us a definition of non-violent communication. What do you suggest to do with it? Where is the evidence that there is a lot of violent expression of opinion on Wikimedia projects anyway? And supposing there is, how exactly are you going to make those communicating violently switch to non-violent communication? --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. It helps me to understand what I can do to make my idea more efficient. I see 3 questions in your comment.
    • "This idea, as it stands now, is much too vague" OK, I understand that you focus on a more detailed explanation of this idea. If so, I can give more details. The concept of non violent communication (NVC) exists for more than a half century, with many references like books, Internet sites, social groups on Facebook & Yahoo, videos on Youtube, and tons of practical implementations. For instance, what is NVC in a few lines: What is NVC
    • "Where is the evidence of violent expression of opinion in Wikipedia?" Harassment is violent, and this is why it is an issue in Wikipedia and why Wikipedia asks for contributions. If you don't agree with my statement, please let me know how you understand Wikimedia asking for ideas on how best to deal with harassment; I may have misunderstood the point.
    • "How exactly are you going to make those communicating violently switch to non-violent communication?" I understand your question as how to switch from a violent communication to a non-violent one. This leads me to join my answer with your next question "What we can do to decrease violence in Wikimedia?"

We first start with the basics of non violent communication: understand that every contribution is an act of communication. Secondly, violence is a tragic form of incomplete communication, when one's needs are unmet. Let's propose the non violent way, by taking into account the whole parts of a communication: observation - feelings - needs - request. This can be done in details by creating a toolbox with the method, examples and support to everybody in need of how to face harassment. I don't say I can deal with any situation, that will be the benefit of asking many people to share their experience.

Did this text answered your questions? Is there anything else you want to say? I have a request for you: this is my first participation in this IdeaLab, would you like to help me in expressing this idea in a form that match the Wikimedia criteria? Thank you for your answer. Gwalarn (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Gwalarn! Let's discuss this on the Discussion page of your Grant shall we? That's more appropriate :) I'll copy the reply you made here to the Discussion page and reply there. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK! Gwalarn (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please move your oppose sections to talk page.

Hi Doveofsymplegades. While we're discussing what to do about feedback of ideas in IdeaLab, could I ask you to move the oppose sections you've created to the talk pages of the respective ideas? I'm open to rethinking and changing how feedback in IdeaLab is presented, but it's a conversation that will probably take some time, and involve a number of perspectives. For now, I think it makes sense to keep ideas consistent in how they are presented. Would you be willing to move these sections to the talk page? Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): I was gone for a bit. I think you may have already moved my Opposition sections to the Discussion pages, right? If not, let me know and I'll move them myself. Thanks for escalating the concern :) --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doveofsymplegades: I've only had time to move over the sections you created on 5 June, but not thereafter. If you through your contributions, I'd appreciate if you could move over the rest that you created. Thanks for your help. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): I just read the discussion on how to handle feedback that you linked me to (and provided my input there). It seems that there are quite a lot of people expressing concern about moving opposition to the Discussion page. I would rather wait for this to be resolved before moving everything over before shuffling the Opposition pages around again. I hope you're okay with that. Best, --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"They" vs. "He"

I just noticed something, I hope I am not butting in or insulting. In many places editors are called "they" instead of "he/she" to show that the person's words are important, not their sex or appearance. Women are often treated as less important than men, so not being identified as a woman can help in discussions. "They" just means you don't know/care whether they are he or she, even if their name shows it. It is not any insult to you, it's sort of being polite to everyone. A little trick. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not easily offended, don't worry. I have to admit, I actually know that "they" is used as a gender neutral pronoun. I just find it to be a grammatical abomination, since "they" is also the plural pronoun. Hence the snarky comment. It's not very gracious to air my grievances about this use of "they" this way though and it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion so I have removed it. Thanks for taking the time to explain anyway :) --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)