| Revision as of 05:46, 3 October 2012 editUnscintillating (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,833 edits →RfC closing: multiple posts← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:15, 3 October 2012 edit undoNathan Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,381 edits Reverted 1 edit by Unscintillating (talk). (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :::::As closer of the RfC, I simply summarized the discussion. I have no authority to mandate that certain text be inserted into the article or not. -] (]) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | :::::As closer of the RfC, I simply summarized the discussion. I have no authority to mandate that certain text be inserted into the article or not. -] (]) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I sense a modification in your position, which if so would be helpful; but it is not clear if this is intended to be a modified position. And I don't know why you think that you "simply summarized the discussion"—it has already been discussed that you did not confirm an apparent consensus. ] (]) 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == The confounding of posts with multiple issues == | |||
| Please don't introduce confounding issues in one topic thread as you did at ] above. At a minimum, such confounding is a distraction, and in the context it makes it appear that you are using the distraction to avoid answering questions. Please note that the edits above do not initiate a discussion about ]. If you intend to initiate a conversation on this issue, please review that the edits above are internally conflicted, as follows. One labels the addition of white-space with name-calling ("stupid"). Then another one uses a ] logical fallacy that the addition of white space has "no reason". Yet another projects the logical contradiction that there is an ''editor'' at Misplaced Pages who is "incapable" of ''editing''. In addition, you've already asserted that you read my comments at the RfC, and there is no record that such reading was itself an issue for the RfC. ] (]) 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Rhetoric == | |||
| Please avoid ] as you did at ], where you said, "So by saying you did not !vote, you're saying you did not not vote or that you actually voted." The absence of a !vote is not itself a vote. ] (]) 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Assuming what other people think == | |||
| Multiple times in the above discussion, ], you have mentioned that you are other people's minds based on assumptions. One example is that you knew what my "preference" was in the RfC, and weighed in the non-existent !vote. This is an improper technique that biases your conclusions based on how you think other people think. ] (]) 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:15, 3 October 2012
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Robert Legato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Your speedy
Please explain your speedy of my article, which has been sitting there happily for years. It's this kind of shoot-first-ask-questions-later which drives eds off the project. See my TP for ref. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- If only it was so easy to get rid of plagiarists. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
The Tom Cruise discussion was frustrating so it was nice to see it summed up for those who may not have been willing to read the entire thread. Insomesia (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC closing
Your recent closing at Talk:Illinois Family Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead? is not clear. First of all, when you say, "rational", do you mean, "rationale"? Secondly, you state, "The RfC specifically mentions the rational to be included..." It is not our job to guess what you mean, especially as it appeared that there was consensus that no such text existed except for the phrase, "SPLC 'hate group' designation". Exactly what is the text that you are saying must be included? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Besides the misspelling, I thought the close was self-explanatory. As originally written, the RfC included the text some wished to exclude. Therefore, I read the comments by those !voting to include-without specifically stating to include the text-to be for including the explaining text. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am entirely unaware of any "text some wished to exclude". Please explain what you are talking about. As an editor that did not place a !vote, I have reason to expect that an RfC statement stands on its own, and that I don't have to !vote based on what it might mean. What kind of RfC workmanship proposes specific text but does not state the specific text that is proposed? Have you read the section "Closing the RfC"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon my misunderstanding. I assumed that since you participated in the RfC you had actually read it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Saying in the previous edit comment, "remove stupid", and editing my post seems to be an ineffective way of building consensus. The bigger puzzle is why you have again avoided answering my questions, and continue to refuse to explain your closing. I read the RfC nomination multiple times, and made comments, but I did not !vote in the RfC. What exactly is the text that you are saying must be included? Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't use non-breaking spaces for no reason as you have been doing. It makes it hard to read when in edit mode, which, coincidentally, is how I edit a page to reply to what you have written. I have once again removed them. If you are incapable of not using them, I would ask that you refrain from using my talk page. Also, the ! in !vote is a negation. So by saying you did not !vote, you're saying you did not not vote or that you actually voted. In reality, just because you didn't preface your comments with a bolded word didn't mean I didn't read and consider your points just as if you had used a bolded word to indicate your preference. So I did consider your !vote just as everyone else who participated in the discussion.
- Saying in the previous edit comment, "remove stupid", and editing my post seems to be an ineffective way of building consensus. The bigger puzzle is why you have again avoided answering my questions, and continue to refuse to explain your closing. I read the RfC nomination multiple times, and made comments, but I did not !vote in the RfC. What exactly is the text that you are saying must be included? Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon my misunderstanding. I assumed that since you participated in the RfC you had actually read it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am entirely unaware of any "text some wished to exclude". Please explain what you are talking about. As an editor that did not place a !vote, I have reason to expect that an RfC statement stands on its own, and that I don't have to !vote based on what it might mean. What kind of RfC workmanship proposes specific text but does not state the specific text that is proposed? Have you read the section "Closing the RfC"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As closer of the RfC, I simply summarized the discussion. I have no authority to mandate that certain text be inserted into the article or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)