Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Magnus, Divided Loyalties and more: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Magnus, Divided Loyalties and more (view source)
Revision as of 15:05, 14 November 2012
, 14 November 2012no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
::Agreed with [[User:OttselSpy25]] here. This is definitely not an easy discussion to follow. [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:28, November 14, 2012 (UTC) | ::Agreed with [[User:OttselSpy25]] here. This is definitely not an easy discussion to follow. [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] [[User talk:Imamadmad|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:28, November 14, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::I regret that you're frustrated, 41. My role here is ''not'' that of a roadblock. I've been desperately trying to help you frame your argument in a way that makes sense to other users. As can be evidenced by the above two comments, '''you haven't done that'''. | |||
:::I think the biggest problem you're having is that you are not actually answering the questions posed to you. For instance, in your response to my earlier comments today, I asked you twice whether this was a policy matter, and you never answered that directly. Your answer to a yes/no question was to complain about the question. | |||
:::As for the implications of this discussion potentially being in the "wrong" forum, you're being well over-dramatic. All that means is that we'd change the template at the very top of this page to read {{tlx|forumheader|reference desk}}. That's it. It wouldn't require a frustrating "restart". | |||
:::And as I recall, what I ''actually'' advised you to do was to finish the discussion at [[Forum:How to handle the Deca]]. I believe I said something like, "once you decide how to handle the Deca, you'll understand more about the Magnus situation." I also thought, at the time, that you were trying to use this case to speak to policy, which would have made this the appropriate forum. But, and you've still not absolutely confirmed this, it now appears that you're merely talking about content, which is a matter for the reference desk. The reason it's important to choose the right forum is that it helps other users understand the broad context of your question. | |||
:::Overall though the entire problem with all of this is that you've stubbornly avoided asking a question. You just info-dumped a ''theory'', with no particular ''application'' of that theory in sight. It took ''another anonymous user'' to finally bring some sort of clarity to this thread. | |||
:::It's unfortunate that you're frustrated with this process. All I can say is that it's worked since 2005. Hundreds of questions have been asked and answered in these forums. Sometimes people have gotten frustrated with the fact that they've had to wait for a few days for obvious things to be resolved. But I've never seen anyone completely miss the point of forum communication quite the way you have. All that's required for successful use of the forums is to ask simple questions, then ''directly'' answer those questions that others pose to you. The reason you've been unsuccessful in your attempts is that you haven't done that. | |||
:::Communication is not the same as info-dumping. It's listening to what other parties have to say and directly addressing them. It's phrasing things so as to influence action. It's ''not only'' having an idea for change, ''but also'' crafting your words so as to achieve that change. That's why, as I've tried to point out to you, your first post should be something along the lines of "I think <this situation here> should be changed because of <that situation there>" or "One of our articles says <this thing here>, but I've read <this bit there> so should we change our approach to our article?" | |||
:::What's even weirder to me is '''that you know this'''. Take a look at your other thread, [[Forum:How to handle the Deca]]. Your first post there is ''very'' clear. You describe what the discussion is about and you say very clearly what you're proposing. I don't really understand why you're so vague in ''this'' thread, and why you've obstinately refused to give a clear statement of purpose here, despite being offered multiple chances to restart the thread. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 15:05: Wed 14 Nov 2012</span> | |||
