| Revision as of 19:53, 20 January 2016 editDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,724 editsm →I'd like some input← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:43, 20 January 2016 edit undoLaser brain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,564 edits →I'd like some input: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| I've been asking around, but I'd like your take. In your view, what, other than a ban, would be a good outcome here? | I've been asking around, but I'd like your take. In your view, what, other than a ban, would be a good outcome here? | ||
| As for my interest, I'm a professional proofreader and editor. I've focused on pages that concern my area of expertise. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC) | As for my interest, I'm a professional proofreader and editor. I've focused on pages that concern my area of expertise. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| : {{ping|Darkfrog24}} The desired outcome is that any page that provides advice to editors (MoS) or reference to readers (article space) is free of disruption. I think protracted disagreements that play out in a production environment, rather than on Talk pages exclusively, are disruptive to any person who comes by seeking advice or reference. Your average editor doesn't know or care about the intricacies of LQ and whether it is a purely stylistic or possibly nationalistic issue. Nor should they be made to care by being privy to the dispute, when all they were trying to do is figure out where to put a period. I believe you want to do what's best for the encyclopedia, but I think you've lost sight of that goal in that you're personalizing the issues, you're focused on winning the dispute, and you haven't demonstrated that you know when to walk away and find something else to do. This may be selfish but if you're a proofreader and editor I'd rather you focus on helping us at ] or ]. Proofread and edit some pages that might actually show up on the front page some day, you know? I detest solutions that amount to force (blocks and bans) but I don't see any other way forward that doesn't involve you continuing the same behavior. --] ] 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:43, 20 January 2016
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6 as User talk:Laser brain/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
 Archives |
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Iwane Matsui GAN
Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
It's that season again...
|
Happy Saturnalia | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like some input
I've been asking around, but I'd like your take. In your view, what, other than a ban, would be a good outcome here? As for my interest, I'm a professional proofreader and editor. I've focused on pages that concern my area of expertise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24: The desired outcome is that any page that provides advice to editors (MoS) or reference to readers (article space) is free of disruption. I think protracted disagreements that play out in a production environment, rather than on Talk pages exclusively, are disruptive to any person who comes by seeking advice or reference. Your average editor doesn't know or care about the intricacies of LQ and whether it is a purely stylistic or possibly nationalistic issue. Nor should they be made to care by being privy to the dispute, when all they were trying to do is figure out where to put a period. I believe you want to do what's best for the encyclopedia, but I think you've lost sight of that goal in that you're personalizing the issues, you're focused on winning the dispute, and you haven't demonstrated that you know when to walk away and find something else to do. This may be selfish but if you're a proofreader and editor I'd rather you focus on helping us at WP:PR or WP:FAC. Proofread and edit some pages that might actually show up on the front page some day, you know? I detest solutions that amount to force (blocks and bans) but I don't see any other way forward that doesn't involve you continuing the same behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)