| Revision as of 14:23, 17 June 2006 editIdeogram (talk | contribs)11,726 edits →Give it a break: I really mean it!!!← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:35, 17 June 2006 edit undoAñoranza (talk | contribs)1,398 edits →Give it a breakNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::::::How about (1) revert a day each? I think that addresses the issue of summing up reverts. What number do you propose then instead of 80% since you agree with the portion about how Straw Polls are to be handled? As for being uncivil, I suggested whenever we reply to eachother we do it with sources, that also addresses innuendo. As for my talk page, I can remove discussions from it if I feel they will not be productive, just like you removed Sasquatches comments today when you logged on. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ::::::How about (1) revert a day each? I think that addresses the issue of summing up reverts. What number do you propose then instead of 80% since you agree with the portion about how Straw Polls are to be handled? As for being uncivil, I suggested whenever we reply to eachother we do it with sources, that also addresses innuendo. As for my talk page, I can remove discussions from it if I feel they will not be productive, just like you removed Sasquatches comments today when you logged on. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I already told you which number is the correct one for stopping to revert: 50%. If there is disagreement and you are in the minority, use talk instead of reverts. Your innuendo will certainly not improve if you provide sources for useless analogies like the cold war one. ] 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Just looking at this page'' (I'm '''NOT''' going to rehash old evidence) I see Zer0fault asking you to offer a compromise. Your response is going to be my first impression of you. ] 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ''Just looking at this page'' (I'm '''NOT''' going to rehash old evidence) I see Zer0fault asking you to offer a compromise. Your response is going to be my first impression of you. ] 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| Añoranza, if you refuse to negotiate in good faith and continue to fail to assume good faith, your posts here will be used against you in a possible future RfC against you. I suggest you take a break and try to cool off. Zer0fault, you can help by '''not''' responding if Añoranza posts again. ] 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | Añoranza, if you refuse to negotiate in good faith and continue to fail to assume good faith, your posts here will be used against you in a possible future RfC against you. I suggest you take a break and try to cool off. Zer0fault, you can help by '''not''' responding if Añoranza posts again. ] 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::What you write about "Removing discussion from talk page" shows how well the perfidious tactics by ] work. Many many many editors remove comments from their talk pages, and there was no warning or any such thing at all in what I removed, so it is in no way confrontational as he implied and you were made to believe. | |||
| :I have the impression you are not unbiased. I have provided a fair amount of evidence indicating ] has no good faith, and your supporting of such a ridiculous consensus as he suggested disturbs me. I suggest you take a break yourself. ] 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:35, 17 June 2006
Give it a break
I'm not about to read every last word of this dispute, but my first impression is that Zer0Fault being able to make peace with everyone but Mr. Tibbs reflects badly on Mr. Tibbs. This by no means is a license to Zer0Fault for more incivility and failure to assume good faith, however. Ideogram 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The complaint stands, the evidence is there. Añoranza 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly do you see as a useful means of mediating this situation? What would bring this to a close for you? --zero faults 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just stop all those obstructive actions you are known to engage in from the past: revert warring, refusal to accept consensus, POV, endless innuendo, incivility, refusal to discuss issues on your talk page. Añoranza 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to not be looking for a middle ground, instead some sort of admittance of guilt in some manner. I offer a compromise, how about you and Mr. Tibbs agree to a (1) revert rule, self imposed. I will only revert an article that either of you have edited once maximum, and the two of you collectively onl y have (1) revert against one of my edits? I think that will solve revert warring. As for uncivil behaviour, how about we only reply to eachothers comments with sources? This would stop innuendo and also stop uncivil comments as all comments would then be directly related to the facts of the discussion. As for POV I do not think we will ever reach amid point as we both think eachother is doing it. As for concensus I make this offer. I will abide by Straw Poll results when they are more then 80% in opposition of me, and the polls are done according to the guidlines which means the questions have to be arrived at by a real concensus, meaning both sides have to agree the questions are appropriate. Fair enough? Did I miss anything? --zero faults 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. You want to sum up the reverts of others in order to be able to spread your POV? Just stop reverting, if you argue well on the talk pages others will edit the way you favour. You have to resist reverting if you are in a minority, not only if there is an 80% majority against you. You missed the point of incivility, endless innuendo, and refusal to discuss issues on your talk page. Añoranza 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to not be looking for a middle ground, instead some sort of admittance of guilt in some manner. I offer a compromise, how about you and Mr. Tibbs agree to a (1) revert rule, self imposed. I will only revert an article that either of you have edited once maximum, and the two of you collectively onl y have (1) revert against one of my edits? I think that will solve revert warring. As for uncivil behaviour, how about we only reply to eachothers comments with sources? This would stop innuendo and also stop uncivil comments as all comments would then be directly related to the facts of the discussion. As for POV I do not think we will ever reach amid point as we both think eachother is doing it. As for concensus I make this offer. I will abide by Straw Poll results when they are more then 80% in opposition of me, and the polls are done according to the guidlines which means the questions have to be arrived at by a real concensus, meaning both sides have to agree the questions are appropriate. Fair enough? Did I miss anything? --zero faults 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just stop all those obstructive actions you are known to engage in from the past: revert warring, refusal to accept consensus, POV, endless innuendo, incivility, refusal to discuss issues on your talk page. Añoranza 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what exactly do you see as a useful means of mediating this situation? What would bring this to a close for you? --zero faults 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- How about (1) revert a day each? I think that addresses the issue of summing up reverts. What number do you propose then instead of 80% since you agree with the portion about how Straw Polls are to be handled? As for being uncivil, I suggested whenever we reply to eachother we do it with sources, that also addresses innuendo. As for my talk page, I can remove discussions from it if I feel they will not be productive, just like you removed Sasquatches comments today when you logged on. --zero faults 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I already told you which number is the correct one for stopping to revert: 50%. If there is disagreement and you are in the minority, use talk instead of reverts. Your innuendo will certainly not improve if you provide sources for useless analogies like the cold war one. Añoranza 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- How about (1) revert a day each? I think that addresses the issue of summing up reverts. What number do you propose then instead of 80% since you agree with the portion about how Straw Polls are to be handled? As for being uncivil, I suggested whenever we reply to eachother we do it with sources, that also addresses innuendo. As for my talk page, I can remove discussions from it if I feel they will not be productive, just like you removed Sasquatches comments today when you logged on. --zero faults 14:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just looking at this page (I'm NOT going to rehash old evidence) I see Zer0fault asking you to offer a compromise. Your response is going to be my first impression of you. Ideogram 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Zer0fault's offer is a good one. I'm not saying you have to accept it, but the least you could do is make a counter-offer. Ideogram 13:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing discussions from your own talk pages, while not against Misplaced Pages policy, is usually confrontational.
Añoranza, if you refuse to negotiate in good faith and continue to fail to assume good faith, your posts here will be used against you in a possible future RfC against you. I suggest you take a break and try to cool off. Zer0fault, you can help by not responding if Añoranza posts again. Ideogram 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- What you write about "Removing discussion from talk page" shows how well the perfidious tactics by Zer0faults work. Many many many editors remove comments from their talk pages, and there was no warning or any such thing at all in what I removed, so it is in no way confrontational as he implied and you were made to believe.
- I have the impression you are not unbiased. I have provided a fair amount of evidence indicating Zer0faults has no good faith, and your supporting of such a ridiculous consensus as he suggested disturbs me. I suggest you take a break yourself. Añoranza 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)