| Revision as of 04:18, 11 May 2013 editBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits Rrply← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:28, 14 May 2013 edit undoGatoclass (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators104,013 edits new section ae request resultNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| I don't think your are disruptive. Instead, you are easily perceived as overconfident in your own opinion and unwilling to consider flexibility to accomodate other opinions, and consistent, stalwart or unwavering in support of your position. To others, this can be frustrating. To you, do you find the others illogical or stupid? There is a problem with this, but I don't agree that it rises to "disruptive". --] (]) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | I don't think your are disruptive. Instead, you are easily perceived as overconfident in your own opinion and unwilling to consider flexibility to accomodate other opinions, and consistent, stalwart or unwavering in support of your position. To others, this can be frustrating. To you, do you find the others illogical or stupid? There is a problem with this, but I don't agree that it rises to "disruptive". --] (]) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : Certainly I've encountered arguments that I considered to be illogical (and perhaps silly but I don't think stupid), but I don't recall ever considering any WP editor to be personally stupid or illogical. When I form and share an opinion I do so based on certain reasons, and I try to explain those reasons. If this is viewed as over confident I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm always open to being wrong. --]2] 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | : Certainly I've encountered arguments that I considered to be illogical (and perhaps silly but I don't think stupid), but I don't recall ever considering any WP editor to be personally stupid or illogical. When I form and share an opinion I do so based on certain reasons, and I try to explain those reasons. If this is viewed as over confident I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm always open to being wrong. --]2] 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == AE request result == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Misplaced Pages ] and ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page. | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. | |||
| | Ambox warning pn.svg | |||
| | icon size = 40px | |||
| }}<!-- This message is derived from Template:Uw-sanctions --> | |||
| Please read ] at ] for details. Thank you, ] (]) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:28, 14 May 2013
Coherent reply policyIf I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise. |
|---|
 Born2cycle Talk Archives | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Misplaced Pages policy, debating style and perspectives
Hi B2C,
RE: ].
I don't think your are disruptive. Instead, you are easily perceived as overconfident in your own opinion and unwilling to consider flexibility to accomodate other opinions, and consistent, stalwart or unwavering in support of your position. To others, this can be frustrating. To you, do you find the others illogical or stupid? There is a problem with this, but I don't agree that it rises to "disruptive". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly I've encountered arguments that I considered to be illogical (and perhaps silly but I don't think stupid), but I don't recall ever considering any WP editor to be personally stupid or illogical. When I form and share an opinion I do so based on certain reasons, and I try to explain those reasons. If this is viewed as over confident I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm always open to being wrong. --B2C 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
AE request result
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Please read this discussion at WP:AE for details. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)