| Revision as of 14:07, 6 September 2009 editRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 editsm →Moving Forward: sp← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:48, 6 September 2009 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits I've ask you to stop!Next edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| == Moving Forward == | |||
| OK, so the RFC failed. That's probably a combination of my not doing it right and chance. Now since the point of the RFC was simply to get you to acknowledge some very straight forward points, I'm going to list them below and ask you to help move things forward by accepting them, or if necessary explaining why you don't. We don't need to get into ins and outs of who's done what wrong, as long as we can agree on what we should all be doing. OK? | |||
| * follow community indenting practice (see guideline ] and clarifying essay ] which is linked from ]) | |||
| * acknowledge that comments on a user talk page which imply the need for a response or acknowledgement do normally merit a response of some kind, either on the user's own talk page or on the poster's. Deletion of such comments is permitted by ] but doing so without response may be considered a violation of ]. | |||
| * acknowledge that the user's talk page is the primary way for editors to communicate messages specifically to the user, and that asking people to stop using it is inappropriate | |||
| * acknowledge that deleting others' comments from article talk pages is highly unusual, and that where personal attacks might merit deletion, the user should not delete them but rather ask the poster to strike, reply to the post appropriately and without adding fuel to the fire, let others remove the comments, or ask for help. | |||
| * acknowledge that editors should not take offence at good faith suggestions, even if they involve criticisms of their actions | |||
| * acknowledge that citing policy generically is not a substitute for substantive content discussion, and that generic citation of policy discussion participants are aware of is unhelpful and can be considered aggressive. This contrasts with specifically quoting policy where it is necessary to clarify particular points, or raising policy participants seem to have forgotten or may be unaware of. | |||
| Come on, let's move on from this. This confrontation has blown up in an entirely unnecessary way because of the way you responded to my comments on some pretty minor and easily fixable issues, and it's within your power to put it to rest. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:48, 6 September 2009
 | If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. Domer48 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
- Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.
-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
|
 Archives |
|---|
Useful links
Irish Manual of Style~
Policy ~
Assume good faith ~
Citing sources ~
Civility ~
Consensus ~
Dispute resolution ~
Etiquette ~
No original research ~
What Misplaced Pages is not ~
No personal attacks ~
Neutral point of view ~
POINT ~
Reliable sources ~
Verifiability ~
WP:Attribution ~
WP:Synthesis ~
WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms
Useful Noticeboard
3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard
Template messages
Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes