| Revision as of 08:33, 3 July 2006 editJ Di (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,687 edits →Cooperation and failure to participate in consensus.← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:46, 3 July 2006 edit undoSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits Ignoring anybodyNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ] 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | ] 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I made a comment. My opinion wouldn't have fit in any one of the voting categories, so I made a comment, explaining my point of view. And which two editors had an opinion, and what would that opinion be? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></font>] 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | :I made a comment. My opinion wouldn't have fit in any one of the voting categories, so I made a comment, explaining my point of view. And which two editors had an opinion, and what would that opinion be? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></font>] 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Ignoring anybody == | |||
| In the reponse, JD_UK wrote: "I've been told quite a few times by 9cds and Ste4k that I do not listen to what other people have to say, but I do not see anything that would suggest that I have ignored anybody." | |||
| , clearly suggest that he ingored somebody: "He did actually say he was considering nominating the article for deletion; but I didn't think he would actually do it. --JDtalkemail 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| Even in the section above on this discussion page, JD_UK ignores the clause "assuming the incorrect gender". I will no longer respond directly to this editor as all previous conversations have resulted only in adamant refusal to consider another person's opinion on practically any matter. | |||
| ] 08:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:46, 3 July 2006
Gender classification
JD_UK wrote in the response, "As for Ste4k, I initially did not feel there was any conflict, but his(?) decision..." I find it personally insulting that an editor would insist on assuming the incorrect gender even after being warned. That may be the cultural norm in Austrailia in regard to women, however, this is an NPOV encyclopedia, and there isn't any call for anyone purposely trying to act as if one hasn't been told before. Ste4k 08:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, are you male or female? I don't feel comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns, I find them rude and insulting when used. That's why I prefer not to use them. --JD 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Cooperation and failure to participate in consensus.
In the response, JD_UK wrote: "I opened a mediation case to try and get a third perspective on the situation, but I did not feel that a reasonable solution had been reached."
- Two other editors had one opinion, and JD_UK disregarded their opinions.
In the response, JD_UK wrote: "9cds often says that I am unable to compromise, but I feel that the same can be said of her".
- 9cds started a consensus poll which lasted several days and its conclusion showed clearly that editors participating agreed about past tense. JD_UK refused to participate in the consensus poll. After it had been established that a consensus was reached, JD_UK proceeded to ignore it altogether and even make edits that were specifically in disregard to consensus reached.
Ste4k 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I made a comment. My opinion wouldn't have fit in any one of the voting categories, so I made a comment, explaining my point of view. And which two editors had an opinion, and what would that opinion be? --JD 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring anybody
In the reponse, JD_UK wrote: "I've been told quite a few times by 9cds and Ste4k that I do not listen to what other people have to say, but I do not see anything that would suggest that I have ignored anybody."
JD_UK's own words, during an AfD, clearly suggest that he ingored somebody: "He did actually say he was considering nominating the article for deletion; but I didn't think he would actually do it. --JDtalkemail 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"
Even in the section above on this discussion page, JD_UK ignores the clause "assuming the incorrect gender". I will no longer respond directly to this editor as all previous conversations have resulted only in adamant refusal to consider another person's opinion on practically any matter.