| Revision as of 06:01, 26 February 2012 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,378,536 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:49, 26 February 2012 edit undoWillietell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users917 edits →Your recent edits: respond in talk to IshdarianNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| This project brings in people for all across the board, with different beliefs and ideals. We may not all see eye-to-eye on everything, but we need to work together to achieve consensus and, ultimately, better the project. If you have any questions, feel free to hit me back. ''''']]]''''' 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | This project brings in people for all across the board, with different beliefs and ideals. We may not all see eye-to-eye on everything, but we need to work together to achieve consensus and, ultimately, better the project. If you have any questions, feel free to hit me back. ''''']]]''''' 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I don't know what your relationship with the editor who keeps reverting the edit is, but I rather think you are not also giving them the same speech. In fact, I know you are not, because I looked at their talk page and you have failed to mention this issue to them. I have requested of that particular editor that they discuss the edit in talk rather than simply revert, they have failed to do so, instead, another editor who has several times closely linked himself to the reverting editor by his historic actions, has also reverted the edit, giving the impression, in my opinion of ], because they seem to be working in conjunction to one end, as has also been demonstrated in past historical edits. If you feel that the edit I made is POV, please explain how it is so. Additionally, the editors of whom you speak are certainly not attempting to engage in a collaborative culture, unless that culture is to inject POV spin into articles in such a way that it reflects negatively on Jehovah's Witnesses. Every edit I have made has been in a good faith effort to improve Misplaced Pages, but certain editors will accept nothing, not even the slightest wording, that does not paint a POV spin on articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you wish to give advice, please give it to those editors as well, otherwise I may be inclined to believe your advice to me was not in itself made in good faith. Additionally, I am willing to work with others to achieve better articles on Misplaced Pages, however, I cannot say that I have noticed such a co-operative spirit from ''certain'' other editors, I won't mention names, but I am sure you can surmise as to which editors I refer. I came to Misplaced Pages only a couple of months ago, but I have encountered constant hostility from a certain ''set'' of editors, who also seem to hound me from page to page reverting any edit I make. And yet, when I revert the reversion that they made without discussing in talk, I am advised by editors such as yourself, that I need to discuss in talk. Why did you not instead, advise ''them'' that ''they'' need to discuss in talk? They are after all, the ones making the reversion to begin with. It all leads me to ask myself what your particular relationship with those editors is that you would let it impact the way in which you choose to hand out advice. . I will assure you, that if editors choose to work with me in a spirit of co-operation instead of against me in a spirit of hostility, I can be reasonable, that doesn't mean I will not express my opinion, because I certainly will, but I feel that I am certainly not the ''only'' editor that you would do well to advise in regards to "''attempting to engage in a collaborative culture''". ] (]) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:49, 26 February 2012
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?
An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi Willie. I wanted to try and help you out before this gets out of hand. First off, if you make an edit, and someone reverts your edit, use the Bold-Revert-Discuss formula, rather than constant reversions to get your edit in. Just because you think an article should be a certain way, doesn't mean its the right version. This is the edit I'm mainly refering to, but there have been others.
Secondly, you seem to be lacking good faith. You are constantly pushing an argument, making it sound that any statement that doesn't conform to your POV is POV spin. These claims do not breed a collaborative culture, and make it very difficult for other editors to work with you.
This project brings in people for all across the board, with different beliefs and ideals. We may not all see eye-to-eye on everything, but we need to work together to achieve consensus and, ultimately, better the project. If you have any questions, feel free to hit me back. Ishdarian 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what your relationship with the editor who keeps reverting the edit is, but I rather think you are not also giving them the same speech. In fact, I know you are not, because I looked at their talk page and you have failed to mention this issue to them. I have requested of that particular editor that they discuss the edit in talk rather than simply revert, they have failed to do so, instead, another editor who has several times closely linked himself to the reverting editor by his historic actions, has also reverted the edit, giving the impression, in my opinion of WP:meat, because they seem to be working in conjunction to one end, as has also been demonstrated in past historical edits. If you feel that the edit I made is POV, please explain how it is so. Additionally, the editors of whom you speak are certainly not attempting to engage in a collaborative culture, unless that culture is to inject POV spin into articles in such a way that it reflects negatively on Jehovah's Witnesses. Every edit I have made has been in a good faith effort to improve Misplaced Pages, but certain editors will accept nothing, not even the slightest wording, that does not paint a POV spin on articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you wish to give advice, please give it to those editors as well, otherwise I may be inclined to believe your advice to me was not in itself made in good faith. Additionally, I am willing to work with others to achieve better articles on Misplaced Pages, however, I cannot say that I have noticed such a co-operative spirit from certain other editors, I won't mention names, but I am sure you can surmise as to which editors I refer. I came to Misplaced Pages only a couple of months ago, but I have encountered constant hostility from a certain set of editors, who also seem to hound me from page to page reverting any edit I make. And yet, when I revert the reversion that they made without discussing in talk, I am advised by editors such as yourself, that I need to discuss in talk. Why did you not instead, advise them that they need to discuss in talk? They are after all, the ones making the reversion to begin with. It all leads me to ask myself what your particular relationship with those editors is that you would let it impact the way in which you choose to hand out advice. . I will assure you, that if editors choose to work with me in a spirit of co-operation instead of against me in a spirit of hostility, I can be reasonable, that doesn't mean I will not express my opinion, because I certainly will, but I feel that I am certainly not the only editor that you would do well to advise in regards to "attempting to engage in a collaborative culture". Willietell (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)