Discipline for bad grammar?

Recently, I've noticed a rise in, shall we say, bad grammar that (in my opinion) makes the wiki seem like it was written by mentally-deficient apes (No offense to any apes out there...) These, uh, unique phrasings run the gauntlet from embarrassing and unprofessional to downright impossible to read. I consider myself somewhat of a "Grammar Nazi", but I feel that, recently, the wiki's overall new-edit grammar has deteriorated to near incomprehensible - requiring other editors to take the time to make it readable, or, in some cases, just reverting the offending edit if they have no idea what the poster was trying to say.

Spelling and usage mistakes happen, I know. No one's perfect, and it's our responsibility to proofread each other's work. I'm referring to stuff like this:

• Using u instead of you
• Not bothering to choose the correct form of There/Their/They're, Your/You're, Its/It's and other homonyms.
• Missing punctuation (ie, run on sentences, missing apostrophes, ect)
• Repeated/missing letters and words
• Failure to observe simple grammar rules like capitalization.

For example, here are some quotes that I found today:

• On monsters with stomp after you fire bolt them take a few steps back then load counter or u will get hit by there stomp
• the the game still not fixed and now lots of people that used to be able to get into tara can't and my cores only at usage 50% and my internet runs more then prefect so there is still something wrong with the game
• VIP premium service's nao support does not work and hasn't ever since it came out
• The highest damage is set to be at 15,000 minimum to 45,000 maximum. Once pass that limit the damage is revert to 0 minimum to 0 maximum.

That isn't (or at least I hope it isn't) ignorance, that's just plain laziness. I shouldn't have to take 5 minutes to figure out what you wrote because you were to lazy to write "you" instead of "u". It makes the wiki look bad overall, and detracts from our quest to provide accessible information.

As such, there's really nothing to stop these lazy people, other than other editors getting on their case. So I propose we do something. Implement some warning policy where repeated bad grammar like you see above (but not a simple, one time mistake) gets you penalized and/or temporarily banned from editing. This would encourage users to always use their best grammar, and not treat editing the wiki as a lackadaisical thing.

o-o If you ever read any of my posts on the forums, my grammar can be atrocious at times. However, I don't think bad grammar is a good reason to ban someone unless it is a serious and ongoing problem and the editor refuses to corrected it.

I count the forums as different, no one reads those on a "professional" basis. I'm not saying a perma-ban either. Just maybe a 7 day ban, or longer if its an ongoing problem. Right now, no one is really motivated to clean up their grammar, nothing happens to them if they don't. I"m trying to come up with a way to provide that motivation.

how about stuff like who/whom missing the/a and stuff? :/ cuz im really bad at those

I'd count those as minor. Things that are easily corrected. I mean, if I compare your edits to the ones in the first post, yours are much, much better.

I might have grammatical errors sometimes, but I try to use correct grammar in wiki. o-o

Highest maximum damage is 45k? e.e

There's no cap on damage. That was just an example.
I've heard of people hitting well over 50k with just Heat Buster...

Anyway, 7 days is a little long. I'd say 3 or 4, and increase if ongoing.

Minor mistakes should be given a slap on the wrist. Obscure mistakes should simply be corrected. Major mistakes... Well. That is up for an admin.

Maybe they could be given few warnings before ban?

Anyway, where did you hear of 50k heat buster damage? Little bit over 10k makes sense, but 50k? e.o ......

Sounds absurd, I know. But I was told that. And complicated calculations made by Kevin made it seem possible...

I'd leave the actual punishment scale up to the admins to decide. Also, it's funny how everyone is defending their grammar, suddenly. Unless you're doing the stuff I quoted in my first post, I'm not mad at you, and you wouldn't be punished by any policy implemented by this.

The issue now is that we, as fellow editors, and, to some extent, the admins, can't "force" people to use correct grammar. We can only ask and hope they improve. With this, we'd have the ammo to say, "look, clean up your edits or you can't contribute."

I still don't think that "bad grammar" is a very good reason to ban someone, even for a short time. Everyone has moments where they derp the language. So long as the contributions are in good faith, they should be given a pass. However, there were plenty of other reason to remove those edits that had nothing to do with "bad grammar". (editorializing, incorrect/inaccurate information, etc.)

The idea is that we wouldn't bring this rule out for just one little mistake, but constant, constant laziness. For example, ALL the quotes in the first post were edits/posts made by User talk:Geminitiger0 (Linking to his talk page). What he does, and what other people have kind of started to do, is the target of this idea.

I might have misused grammar in talks before (don't remember >.>), but I definitely didn't do so in editing articles.

And I see what you mean there. :o

My god, even after Aubog mentions errors, he doesn't fix it. .___.

I do agree that people who use the abbreviations and wrong grammar too much are "mentally-deficient apes" that you mentioned. o-o

Oh wait a minute, Sorry I got confused.

something like

u

r

10k

for the lulz

b0ss

and other errrrrr unnecessary slang term should be in control though