User talk:Postdlf/Archive26: Difference between revisions
Stop this nonsense-→Your discussion style: . |
→Your discussion style: comment to Guy1890, closing otherwise nonconstructive thread |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
==Your discussion style== |
==Your discussion style== |
||
{{archive top}} |
|||
In an effort to smooth our discussions: To me, your discussion style is that of a debate rather than a collaboration. Do you see how I might have that perspective? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 21:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
In an effort to smooth our discussions: To me, your discussion style is that of a debate rather than a collaboration. Do you see how I might have that perspective? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 21:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Not unless the answer is "irony". '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
:Not unless the answer is "irony". '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
::::I think it is fine to collaborate with others working on an article currently under AfD. You'll note that before anyone else started working on the article, I pointed out my concerns with edits then self-reverted. Now that we've editors actively working on the article, I'm working with them. Please don't prevent the improvement of the article. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
::::I think it is fine to collaborate with others working on an article currently under AfD. You'll note that before anyone else started working on the article, I pointed out my concerns with edits then self-reverted. Now that we've editors actively working on the article, I'm working with them. Please don't prevent the improvement of the article. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::You need to stop your obvious & intentional disruptive behavior immediately "Ronz". The are zero "BLP problems" in the [[List of Playboy Playmates of 2014]] article. No amount of opining (without any facts to back up those assertions) will change that fact. AfD discussions involve just that...discussions about the content of an article. In short, they are, in fact, debates about article content & Wikipedia policy as it applies to the article under consideration for deletion. Don't try & backpedal on your recent editing behavior "Ronz", because we pretty much all can tell that it's obviously been intentionally disruptive. You're not, in fact, "working with" anyone. Again, stop it. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
:::::You need to stop your obvious & intentional disruptive behavior immediately "Ronz". The are zero "BLP problems" in the [[List of Playboy Playmates of 2014]] article. No amount of opining (without any facts to back up those assertions) will change that fact. AfD discussions involve just that...discussions about the content of an article. In short, they are, in fact, debates about article content & Wikipedia policy as it applies to the article under consideration for deletion. Don't try & backpedal on your recent editing behavior "Ronz", because we pretty much all can tell that it's obviously been intentionally disruptive. You're not, in fact, "working with" anyone. Again, stop it. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{ping:Guy1890}} Just ignore Ronz. He hasn't said anything new in the AFD so there's no need for further rebuttal there. Otherwise he's just exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]], and what can only be characterized as trolling and goading notwithstanding his pretense at "collaboration". If he blanks any more content from the list, revert and then report him at ANI. If you go that route, Guy1890, be sure to keep it concise and with clear diffs, focused on him first blanking entirely and then edit warring on exactly the position of his AFD nomination while it's still pending and while it's actively disputed. Don't try to argue the AFD itself (i.e., whether the list should ultimately be kept or deleted), though feel free to briefly and generally summarize his tone there. Just remember that posts that are tl;dr are often written off at ANI. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 00:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
Revision as of 00:00, 23 July 2014
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/WinslowHomer-West_Wind_1891.jpg/500px-WinslowHomer-West_Wind_1891.jpg)
| ||
| ||
contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 |
can you email me text from deleted page: All UC Davis alumni by department
I understand the exclusionary action, and I'd like to put the text on wikia, but the history does not show deleted pages.
Can you send it to me? dzetland@gmail Davidzet (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Copy posted at User:Davidzet/temp. I'll delete it in a few days. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! Davidzet (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
incomplete List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units
I've reached an agreement with the user who nominated the List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in El Salvador that it should be recreated pending completion of the list based on the Paleobiology Database. I just wanted to let you know I was doing this so you don't think I'm sneaking around behind your back. Abyssal (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks
For your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. Since my proposal is to make a change to the guideline, would you mind commenting on the specific wording and if you're ok with it, or whether you'd propose changes? thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
talk page edit conflict?
Hi, could you fix this edit[1] ? DexDor (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed, with a reply. It's strange, it didn't show me you had added text at all even though I got an edit conflict notice, which just confused me. postdlf (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Deletion request denied on List of ice hockey countries?
Why would anyone denied this criteria for speedy deletion? And now, there is nothing we can delete this article, like this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ice_hockey_countries&action=delete AaronWikia (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. postdlf (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 00:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vanjagenije (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Your discussion style
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In an effort to smooth our discussions: To me, your discussion style is that of a debate rather than a collaboration. Do you see how I might have that perspective? --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not unless the answer is "irony". postdlf (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you feel you are collaborating? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think it's "collaboration" to edit war and blank a page in support of your own AFD nomination, while the AFD is still pending? Do you think it's collaboration to slide from one rationale to another in response to a rebuttal rather than responding to that rebuttal? Do you think it's collaboration to repeat your opinion over and over again, regardless of what is said in response, without ever developing your argument or advancing the discussion? Do you think it's collaboration to evade legitimate criticism, of both your arguments and your conduct, by pointing to FOC rather than addressing the criticism, while nevertheless persisting in saying and doing exactly what was criticized? You said you don't spend much time at AFD. Well, it shows, but even that's not an adequate excuse. If I wasn't already involved as a participant in this AFD, I would have blocked you for disruption long ago. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Best not to criticize others for edit-warring when you're taking part and encouraging others as well. (And especially when there's an open discussion about multiple BLP problems.)
- Best not criticize for repetition ad naseum against someone providing multiple different means of explaining his point of view and asking for others for elaboration of theirs. As I said, your approach is a debate. Don't project your approach on others, nor expect others to take the same approach.
- "If I wasn't already involved as a participant in this AFD, I would have blocked you for disruption long ago." There you go, escalating your focus on me to the point of threats. Forget my question. Regardless of whether or not you think you're collaborating, you're not.
- But enough about you.
- I think it is fine to collaborate with others working on an article currently under AfD. You'll note that before anyone else started working on the article, I pointed out my concerns with edits then self-reverted. Now that we've editors actively working on the article, I'm working with them. Please don't prevent the improvement of the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You need to stop your obvious & intentional disruptive behavior immediately "Ronz". The are zero "BLP problems" in the List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 article. No amount of opining (without any facts to back up those assertions) will change that fact. AfD discussions involve just that...discussions about the content of an article. In short, they are, in fact, debates about article content & Wikipedia policy as it applies to the article under consideration for deletion. Don't try & backpedal on your recent editing behavior "Ronz", because we pretty much all can tell that it's obviously been intentionally disruptive. You're not, in fact, "working with" anyone. Again, stop it. Guy1890 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ping:Guy1890 Just ignore Ronz. He hasn't said anything new in the AFD so there's no need for further rebuttal there. Otherwise he's just exhibiting WP:IDHT, and what can only be characterized as trolling and goading notwithstanding his pretense at "collaboration". If he blanks any more content from the list, revert and then report him at ANI. If you go that route, Guy1890, be sure to keep it concise and with clear diffs, focused on him first blanking entirely and then edit warring on exactly the position of his AFD nomination while it's still pending and while it's actively disputed. Don't try to argue the AFD itself (i.e., whether the list should ultimately be kept or deleted), though feel free to briefly and generally summarize his tone there. Just remember that posts that are tl;dr are often written off at ANI. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- You need to stop your obvious & intentional disruptive behavior immediately "Ronz". The are zero "BLP problems" in the List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 article. No amount of opining (without any facts to back up those assertions) will change that fact. AfD discussions involve just that...discussions about the content of an article. In short, they are, in fact, debates about article content & Wikipedia policy as it applies to the article under consideration for deletion. Don't try & backpedal on your recent editing behavior "Ronz", because we pretty much all can tell that it's obviously been intentionally disruptive. You're not, in fact, "working with" anyone. Again, stop it. Guy1890 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think it's "collaboration" to edit war and blank a page in support of your own AFD nomination, while the AFD is still pending? Do you think it's collaboration to slide from one rationale to another in response to a rebuttal rather than responding to that rebuttal? Do you think it's collaboration to repeat your opinion over and over again, regardless of what is said in response, without ever developing your argument or advancing the discussion? Do you think it's collaboration to evade legitimate criticism, of both your arguments and your conduct, by pointing to FOC rather than addressing the criticism, while nevertheless persisting in saying and doing exactly what was criticized? You said you don't spend much time at AFD. Well, it shows, but even that's not an adequate excuse. If I wasn't already involved as a participant in this AFD, I would have blocked you for disruption long ago. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you feel you are collaborating? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)