| Revision as of 03:43, 17 March 2008 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Responding to dispute resolution: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:45, 17 March 2008 edit undoCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Responding to dispute resolution: added sentenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| == Responding to dispute resolution == | == Responding to dispute resolution == | ||
| As part of dispute resolution, one of the steps that's required is to engage the other editor in question on his/her talk page. So, that's what I'm doing here. The dispute this time has started in a discussion thread on DanT's talk page: . As described in that thread, what has happened with Mackan79 and has happened with me previously is that when we've tried to engage you in discussion about conduct on your part that we object to, our posts here are usually deleted or archived quickly (with no link here to the archive), often by you or Crum375, not responded to by you, and then another editor often comes and "warns" us not to "harrass" you. I don't think this kind of behavior on your part is helpful and ask that you don't do it anymore. Thanks, ] (]) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | As part of dispute resolution, one of the steps that's required is to engage the other editor in question on his/her talk page. So, that's what I'm doing here. The dispute this time has started in a discussion thread on DanT's talk page: . As described in that thread, what has happened with Mackan79 and has happened with me previously is that when we've tried to engage you in discussion about conduct on your part that we object to, our posts here are usually deleted or archived quickly (with no link here to the archive), often by you or Crum375, not responded to by you, and then another editor often comes and "warns" us not to "harrass" you. I don't think this kind of behavior on your part is helpful and ask that you don't do it anymore. Although you may or may not have control over what other editors do, you could at least respond to the posts here. Thanks, ] (]) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:45, 17 March 2008
| War on Bad Writing 1. There is no such word as "incivil." You can be uncivil, and you can be accused of incivility, but you cannot be incivil. 2. There is definitely no such word as "definately." |
| Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks. |
|---|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Bouncywikilogo.gif){kind=link}
 | |||
|
|
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
Thank-you
 |
Hi SlimVirgin! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).
|
Arbitration
In view of User:Mackan79's disappointing responses and continued unwarranted personal attacks and baseless speculation about you, I am taking this matter to the arbitration committee. . --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding to dispute resolution
As part of dispute resolution, one of the steps that's required is to engage the other editor in question on his/her talk page. So, that's what I'm doing here. The dispute this time has started in a discussion thread on DanT's talk page: . As described in that thread, what has happened with Mackan79 and has happened with me previously is that when we've tried to engage you in discussion about conduct on your part that we object to, our posts here are usually deleted or archived quickly (with no link here to the archive), often by you or Crum375, not responded to by you, and then another editor often comes and "warns" us not to "harrass" you. I don't think this kind of behavior on your part is helpful and ask that you don't do it anymore. Although you may or may not have control over what other editors do, you could at least respond to the posts here. Thanks, Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)