| Revision as of 20:18, 2 April 2019 editAHampton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,545 edits →Constructive: JBL← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:22, 2 April 2019 edit undoAHampton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,545 edits →ConstructiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| == Constructive == | == Constructive == | ||
| As an answer to my question, I take to mean "no", i.e., you were not attempting to offer an opinion about what the text of MOS should read, or to offer comment on the draft that was being discussed there. That's fine, I guess, but it seems to me that it goes against the general purpose of talk pages (e.g., as enshrined ]). Also, with respect to the earlier discussion, it does not appear to me that SMcCandlish either insulted or threatened you. I agree that his decision to return to the discussion 3 weeks later seems like a questionable decision, but the same could be said of your addition to it today. --] (]) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC) | As an answer to my question, I take to mean "no", i.e., you were not attempting to offer an opinion about what the text of MOS should read, or to offer comment on the draft that was being discussed there. That's fine, I guess, but it seems to me that it goes against the general purpose of talk pages (e.g., as enshrined ]). Also, with respect to the earlier discussion, it does not appear to me that SMcCandlish either insulted or threatened you. I agree that his decision to return to the discussion 3 weeks later seems like a questionable decision, but the same could be said of your addition to it today. --] (]) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping|Joel B. Lewis}} I think it's clear that I had been making that attempt, but was thwarted by another. You must have a pretty thick skin to feel no insult when someone assumes your questions are based on "wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline", or later claims that "no one cares" but you "because you're not getting what you want". You care, having revived the discussion yourself. Nonetheless, you ignore or dismiss that someone already tried and was shut down, as if it matters not... very clubby. Do you think remarking that, "a habitual failure to understand the difference would be a WP:CIR problem in a collaborative editing environment" is constructive? (What habitual?) I know a thinly veiled threat when I read one, and that was one. No one tosses out such a comment casually, and I'd bet that he was surprised that it didn't silence me. Being human, of course I am none too happy about any of that. Civility and good faith were lacking on one editor's part, whether you see that or not. He admits to being tired of the topic, and I took the brunt of his angst, whereas he could have just stayed out of the discussion since he's clearly lost patience or goodwill for it. Looks to me like the old-timers get a pass, however rude, and us less seasoned editors are easily discounted. I returned because post-noms came up on my watch list. I was quite surprised to see why. I now see that you've advised him elsewhere to remove his "utterly unconstructive piece of last-word-ism" final comment made three weeks after the fact, ''in order to strengthen his position''... more of those clubhouse rules at play, seems. My inquiries were legitimate, my questions were academic, his responses were riddled with negative presumptions, and the problem of a ready definition for "closely associated" remains. No one's questions should be met with flippancy, rudeness or arrogance. The experience truly undermines any expectation of real collaboration. ] (]) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC) | :{{ping|Joel B. Lewis}} I think it's clear that I had been making that attempt, but was thwarted by another. You must have a pretty thick skin to feel no insult when someone assumes your questions are based on "wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline", or later claims that "no one cares" but you "because you're not getting what you want". You care, having revived the discussion yourself. Nonetheless, you ignore or dismiss that someone already tried and was shut down, as if it matters not... very clubby. Do you think remarking that, "a habitual failure to understand the difference would be a WP:CIR problem in a collaborative editing environment" is constructive? (What habitual?) I know a thinly veiled threat when I read one, and that was one. No one tosses out such a comment casually, and I'd bet that he was surprised that it didn't silence me. Being human, of course I am none too happy about any of that. Civility and good faith were lacking on one editor's part, whether you see that or not. He admits to being tired of the topic, and I took the brunt of his angst, whereas he could have just stayed out of the discussion since he's clearly lost patience or goodwill for it. Looks to me like the old-timers get a pass, however rude, and us less seasoned editors are easily discounted. I returned because post-noms came up on my watch list. I was quite surprised to see why. I now see that you've advised him elsewhere to remove his "utterly unconstructive piece of last-word-ism" final comment made three weeks after the fact, ''in order to strengthen his position''... more of those clubhouse rules at play, seems. My inquiries were legitimate, my questions were academic, his responses were riddled with negative presumptions, and the problem of a ready definition for "closely associated" remains. No one's questions should be met with flippancy, rudeness or arrogance. The experience truly undermines any expectation of real collaboration. (Were you to scroll up, you might gain some clarity over my actual intentions versus those so vulgarly assumed.) ] (]) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:22, 2 April 2019
Your help desk question
You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vchimpanzee, I know (I keep checking). I've researched it as much as I can, but need confirmation, due to a rather large series of edits being done on WP, ostensibly, to adhere to WP:POSTNOM, yet doing the opposite, in my estimation. I had noticed erroneous post-nom deletions on a few pages that I had worked on, (Bill Gates and Ratan Tata, for instance, which have become repetitive, so looked further, and I see that there are scores of post-nom deletions by the same editor, which seems unwarranted. Perhaps it's my misinterpretation, since little notice seems to have been paid by other editors. I need a second opinion. I don't want to raise apparent ire over this unnecessarily, yet it does seem inappropriate to delete these post-noms. AHampton (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the answer is, but when I look at the Help Desk archives I try to answer any unanswered questions or at least let the person know. even if the question is answered, I know what it is not to know where the question was answered on a web site.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Constructive
As an answer to my question, I take this comment to mean "no", i.e., you were not attempting to offer an opinion about what the text of MOS should read, or to offer comment on the draft that was being discussed there. That's fine, I guess, but it seems to me that it goes against the general purpose of talk pages (e.g., as enshrined point 4 here). Also, with respect to the earlier discussion, it does not appear to me that SMcCandlish either insulted or threatened you. I agree that his decision to return to the discussion 3 weeks later seems like a questionable decision, but the same could be said of your addition to it today. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: I think it's clear that I had been making that attempt, but was thwarted by another. You must have a pretty thick skin to feel no insult when someone assumes your questions are based on "wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline", or later claims that "no one cares" but you "because you're not getting what you want". You care, having revived the discussion yourself. Nonetheless, you ignore or dismiss that someone already tried and was shut down, as if it matters not... very clubby. Do you think remarking that, "a habitual failure to understand the difference would be a WP:CIR problem in a collaborative editing environment" is constructive? (What habitual?) I know a thinly veiled threat when I read one, and that was one. No one tosses out such a comment casually, and I'd bet that he was surprised that it didn't silence me. Being human, of course I am none too happy about any of that. Civility and good faith were lacking on one editor's part, whether you see that or not. He admits to being tired of the topic, and I took the brunt of his angst, whereas he could have just stayed out of the discussion since he's clearly lost patience or goodwill for it. Looks to me like the old-timers get a pass, however rude, and us less seasoned editors are easily discounted. I returned because post-noms came up on my watch list. I was quite surprised to see why. I now see that you've advised him elsewhere to remove his "utterly unconstructive piece of last-word-ism" final comment made three weeks after the fact, in order to strengthen his position... more of those clubhouse rules at play, seems. My inquiries were legitimate, my questions were academic, his responses were riddled with negative presumptions, and the problem of a ready definition for "closely associated" remains. No one's questions should be met with flippancy, rudeness or arrogance. The experience truly undermines any expectation of real collaboration. (Were you to scroll up, you might gain some clarity over my actual intentions versus those so vulgarly assumed.) AHampton (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)