| Revision as of 15:29, 5 December 2022 editShibbolethink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,615 editsm edit reply to 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:655C:41A2:7382:EE32 (CD)Tag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:56, 5 December 2022 edit undo2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:655c:41a2:7382:ee32 (talk) Undid revision 1125794433 by Shibbolethink (talk) A simple "no" will have to sufficeTags: Blanking Undo | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :*:{{tq| We have gone through the discussion above, where there was no agreement and one was not likely to come}} - Agreement must not be unanimous. Good wiki-conduct would tell us to wait for unrelated users to weigh in naturally. Since Wiki's project is never done, and there is no time limit. An RFC in this situation is fine, but there were definitely better ways to resolve it. And this ''particular'' form of RFC is not comprehensively worded or neutrally presented. It does not represent the original dispute (whether to include "American" at all), nor does it present the compromise based on the sources. That is my issue with it.<br>{{tq| You stalking me to other discussions, is a dubious step for an editor to take, and I'm both disgusted and chilled by it. }} I'm not sure what you mean? You're an anonymous IP. If you're referring to recent discussions around infoboxes, my participation on those was based on an anonymous IP leaving ] on ] who I know, respect, and talk page stalk, with the edit summary "{{tq|Comment on the content, not other editors}}". {{pb}}I found this interesting, since DS notices are never meant to be punitive in nature. So I followed the discussion threads, and found some RFCs on infoboxes. Are you the same person who is commenting on all of those with the firm belief that such articles should not have infoboxes? The same person who, as ], was ] for edit warring (even edit warring at ArbCom) about infoboxes (and operating multiple accounts)? I've never heard of you or any of these disputes, but I do find this interesting, if so, that you've returned to wiki as an anonymous IP and subsequently ''edit warred'', got into multiple disputes, and resisted any and all discussion about it. I apologize for discussing this on this unrelated talk page, but if you are that same user, you have resisted any attempt to discuss matters civilly on your talk. Reverting and calling such discussions harassment. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is utterly inappropriate in the middle of an RFC. It is also utterly inappropriate to personalise this matter when the RFC is about the opening line of the article. ] (]) 15:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My thoughts exactly, would you be okay with moving this discussion to user talk? As has been attempted several times? Either yours or perhaps a more stable user talk like ]? — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Move it to your talk page. It does not involve General Ization, so should not be on his page. ] (]) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My talk page is semi-protected due to long term harassment from various anonymous editors. So if I did that, you would not be able to participate. I've asked General Ization for their permission to move it there. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Even better. (And describing me as "" is a basis for an ANI filing on top of everything else. ] (]) 15:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I mean, you cannot deny that as SchroCat, you did actually get blocked for edit warring on at least 5 occasions that I can count. I will grant you some of those were probably unnecessary blocks, or mishandled. But it is not an inaccurate description. You appear to have long intervals of productive editing in between those disputes, so I'm not sure what gets your gears so much, but it would be great to figure it out to avoid those situations. You can feel free to take it to ], but I believe that would be unnecessary and premature. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) | |||