Wikiquote talk:No personal attacks

Red text
Why is that unnecessary? It's better for people to understand it correctly and efficiently. People often don't read the policies or instructions properly. KGirlTrucker81 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Being Reasonable
The section on the main page under the same header states, "Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesizing these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikiquotians.". What is meant by "Synthesizing these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone."? How can an argument be made into an article? Usually, if I disagree with a user, I bring it up on their talk page. Is this article saying that I should create an article expressly for that purpose, and than give the link to it to the user I disagree with?

I don't think that section was well written. It needs to be clarified. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional example
Addition to the No personal attacks section, reverted, moved to talk page for discussion:


 * Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons.

Comments?


 * Support Taken directly from Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. An entirely non-controversial addition and clarification of our widely-supported, widely-understood long-standing community norms. JessRek6 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)