| Revision as of 00:15, 27 March 2018 editThewolfchild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,836 edits →Your warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:46, 27 March 2018 edit undoNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits →Your warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Please stop adding posts like these: , Seriously. Don't ask for closes, don't opine on what is needed for closes, just stop acting like a clerk. Participate in discussions but not in meta-discussions if that's clearer to follow. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC) | Please stop adding posts like these: , Seriously. Don't ask for closes, don't opine on what is needed for closes, just stop acting like a clerk. Participate in discussions but not in meta-discussions if that's clearer to follow. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :{{Reply to|NeilN}} - Sorry, but at the risk on incurring further wrath, and perhaps even some kind administrative action, I'm going to request that you clarify these comments. Diff #1; I wasn't aware that adding to a close request was not allowed. I also don't see how it's opinionated in any way that could potentially sway the outcome of a close. I kept it neutrally worded, requesting both considered attention and expedition. Diff #2 is just a question (is it even the right diff?). "Stop acting like a clerk", "Don't participate in meta-discussions", "Don't ask for closes" (am I now banned from ANRFC?), and this section header; "Your warning", are you referring to the recent AE warning? Or this post? I don't understand the basis for these comments, nor the apparent emotion behind them. Seriously. So if you clarify this a little, it would be appreciated. Thank you - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 00:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) | :{{Reply to|NeilN}} - Sorry, but at the risk on incurring further wrath, and perhaps even some kind administrative action, I'm going to request that you clarify these comments. Diff #1; I wasn't aware that adding to a close request was not allowed. I also don't see how it's opinionated in any way that could potentially sway the outcome of a close. I kept it neutrally worded, requesting both considered attention and expedition. Diff #2 is just a question (is it even the right diff?). "Stop acting like a clerk", "Don't participate in meta-discussions", "Don't ask for closes" (am I now banned from ANRFC?), and this section header; "Your warning", are you referring to the recent AE warning? Or this post? I don't understand the basis for these comments, nor the apparent emotion behind them. Seriously. So if you clarify this a little, it would be appreciated. Thank you - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 00:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm referring to the warning I closed the AE request with. Basically, "do what most editors do and nothing else". Most editors just make their points and rebuttals. How many questioned when the discussion would be closed? How many posted at requests for closure? I know it may seem silly to you but part of what was seen as disruptive was you having to get your two cents in ''everywhere''. It's probably going to go against your nature but please, just stick to commenting on specific content and not on discussion structure or processes. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:46, 27 March 2018
|
message regarding an article, please post it there, not here. (and don't forget to {{ping}}) Thank you -  Wolf |
 |
| - all comments will be archived immediately after viewing - |
Your warning
Please stop adding posts like these: , Seriously. Don't ask for closes, don't opine on what is needed for closes, just stop acting like a clerk. Participate in discussions but not in meta-discussions if that's clearer to follow. --NeilN 23:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Sorry, but at the risk on incurring further wrath, and perhaps even some kind administrative action, I'm going to request that you clarify these comments. Diff #1; I wasn't aware that adding to a close request was not allowed. I also don't see how it's opinionated in any way that could potentially sway the outcome of a close. I kept it neutrally worded, requesting both considered attention and expedition. Diff #2 is just a question (is it even the right diff?). "Stop acting like a clerk", "Don't participate in meta-discussions", "Don't ask for closes" (am I now banned from ANRFC?), and this section header; "Your warning", are you referring to the recent AE warning? Or this post? I don't understand the basis for these comments, nor the apparent emotion behind them. Seriously. So if you clarify this a little, it would be appreciated. Thank you - WOLFchild 00:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the warning I closed the AE request with. Basically, "do what most editors do and nothing else". Most editors just make their points and rebuttals. How many questioned when the discussion would be closed? How many posted at requests for closure? I know it may seem silly to you but part of what was seen as disruptive was you having to get your two cents in everywhere. It's probably going to go against your nature but please, just stick to commenting on specific content and not on discussion structure or processes. --NeilN 00:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)