406:, nor did I comment on or label anyone - that whole diff is quite clearly concerned with contributioms, not contributors. And my prior diff was a direct response to your prior diff, not to you as a contributor. If you are interested in participating in a collaborative project, you simply can't go around leveling accusations at other participants, particularly without evidence. And it is perfectly possible to have disagreements with other editors without accusing them of lying to, misleading, baiting or distracting others - I would suggest that you and Rendall make some attempt to do so.
743:
618:
contrary - it takes time and energy, it's very boring, and it draws me away from what I actually wanted to discuss. So in the interest of actually being able to describe the issues plainly in order to figure out the best approach, I'll drop you a short email now and then we can pick it up whenever we have time.
665:
Let's discuss it here, but if someone becomes disruptive we then have options. Also, take it slow. I'm not in a rush. There is enough data over there in archives that we have a pretty good case for disruptive stonewalling and lack of good faith. My issue is less about the content than about conduct.
613:
Hey
Rendall - thank you for the message on my talk page, which is very much appreciated. I'm struggling to find much spare time at the moment, but if the odd delay isn't going to irritate you too much, I'm very much up for discussing how to approach the various issues (as we see them) on the Graham
311:
I have no goals on
Knowledge other than the creation and maintenance of articles that accurately reflect their sources and that communicate effectively with their readers. The cynicism you impute to me does not come from me, and is not reflected in my editing history in any way. Not even Crossroads
296:
Unfortunately, NewImpartial, hurt feelings is the most charitable interpretation of your behavior over there. It reads like a cynical attempt to distract, bait and exhaust editors who disagree with you. Let's begin centering the
Knowledge readers and make the best article we can. This is all I have
617:
As much as I agree that it would be better to have the discussion here for transparency, I've had a few frustrating experiences of editors watching my talk page and derailing conversations with endless accusations of aspersions or bad-faith assumptions, for which they then demand evidence to the
375:
English is one of two languages that I use on a regular basis. I speak and write competently, and I understand your comments. Disagreement is not incompetence, and I'd appreciate it if you could bear that in mind, particularly when you're accusing others of
702:
Incidentally, same - I have no love for
Linehan and if a real and demonstrable consensus arises that differs from my view, that's fair enough. Just not a fan of how the article has been handled in the last few years.
633:
Please don't do this. Even if you don't intend to do anything improper it looks absolutely awful. If anybody raises it with the administrators then the likelyhood of both of you getting blocked would be very high.
130:- this most certainly does come across to me as patronizing mock-civility. Actual civility, for one thing, begins with respect for your interlocutor, and respect is never achieved by sham mind-reading (
128:
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and meant no insult. ... The friendly, truthful thing would be to say something like ... I suggest letting go, welcoming the discussion and being open to proposed changes!
648:
Ok, I understand. What do you suggest that I do instead if I want to discuss this in full view but don't want to waste time being derailed by people I'm not interested in talking to?
253:
of non-men in a dismissive way for centuries now, and many of us find such comments to be deeply personal. Stating that you hurt someone else's feelings, without evidence, is rather
695:
Ok perfect, thanks. I'm not likely to have much spare time for a while but if we're not in a rush then I'll contribute as and when I can. And on reflection, I agree with you and
140:- the irony of making untruthful assertions about what other people are saying to provide evidence for the latter claim should not be lost on you, but sadly, it appears to be.
764:
786:
62:
322:
and barbs you have repeatedly launched at me "in return" - they remain contrary to WP community norms, however, so I do indeed hope that
797:
257:
interpreted as mind reading; it would be less kind (though perhaps more accurate) simply to see a personal attack. Either way, it isn't
38:
369:
and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person.
69:
816:
52:
22:
501:
57:
751:
782:
790:
775:
768:
760:
708:
653:
623:
554:
526:
487:
411:
385:
335:
286:
276:
240:
218:
208:
175:
145:
43:
29:
639:
84:
25:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
110:
96:
80:
33:
120:
92:
73:
482:
Sure, why don't you see if you can bait him into opining on the issue...good luck with that. ;)
91:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
812:
704:
649:
619:
550:
522:
483:
407:
381:
377:
331:
282:
272:
236:
214:
204:
171:
141:
72:, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Knowledge. You can visit
696:
681:
I started a thread there to steel-man the disputed content. Let's try that and do our best!
635:
105:
to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
742:
462:
258:
202:
That opinion doesn't seem conducive to interacting with others on a collaborative project.
106:
361:
It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a
269:
editing in a way that condones such comments isn't conducive to a collaborative project
362:
347:
319:
264:
254:
196:
166:
hasn't directed any personal comments at you, so would it not be more productive to
805:
718:
682:
667:
565:
318:) and if this is what you believe my motives to be, it is easier to understand the
298:
167:
163:
48:
536:
505:
470:
458:
A cynical attempt to distract, bait and exhaust editors who disagree with you
315:
a cynical attempt to distract, bait and exhaust editors who disagree with you
535:
Explains the frosty atmosphere on all the talk pages you contribute to. 😂
518:
228:
No, I'm afraid I don't see that. This is more obviously a personal comment:
312:
has cast ASPERSIONS towards my conduct in the way you have just now (q.v.
796:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
800:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
249:
Well, I don't know
Rendall's gender, but men have been referring to the
564:
Could you two move this discussion off my talk page, please? Thanks.
821:
726:
712:
690:
675:
657:
643:
627:
573:
558:
543:
530:
512:
491:
477:
415:
389:
339:
306:
290:
244:
222:
179:
149:
114:
781:, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be
88:
717:
Agreed. Let's trust the process and improve on it where we can.
741:
21:
Hello, Rendall, and welcome to
Knowledge! Thank you for
127:
101:
136:) or by repeated assertions that the other person is
789:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
353:
330:is borne out by your actions going forwards.
155:This reads very much like mind-reading to me:
8:
504:. Right on the edge of the glyph bounds. 😐
765:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Rendall
356:What "Competence is required" does not mean
100:
465:if he agrees with this assessment of your
431:
802:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
365:and is not helpful. Always refer to the
434:
263:blindness to such matters doesn't show
497:
466:
456:
403:
399:
395:
327:
323:
313:
250:
231:
191:
185:
158:
137:
132:
496:I, of course, am satisfied that your
7:
767:. Note that multiple accounts are
402:. That is not a comment about any
14:
279:) 15:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
211:) 14:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
58:How to create your first article
699:that transparency is important.
614:Linehan article and talk page.
76:to ask questions or seek help.
822:15:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
763:per the evidence presented at
727:07:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
713:18:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
691:21:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
676:16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
658:15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
644:15:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
628:14:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
574:20:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
559:20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
544:20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
531:20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
513:20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
492:20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
478:19:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
436:marginally humorous digression
416:21:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
390:21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
340:16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
307:16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
291:11:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
245:15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
223:11:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
187:I'm sorry I hurt your feelings
180:14:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
150:13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
133:I'm sorry I hurt your feelings
115:12:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
68:You may also want to take the
1:
755:from editing for a period of
44:The five pillars of Knowledge
521:, that's what I always say.
281:redacted and paraphrased by
213:redacted and paraphrased by
838:
549:Now you're getting it. :)
63:Simplified Manual of Style
798:guide to appealing blocks
791:make useful contributions
761:abusing multiple accounts
396:blindness to such matters
159:patronizing mock-civility
39:Contributing to Knowledge
737:Blocked for sockpuppetry
722:
686:
671:
569:
461:- perhaps we should ask
302:
400:doesn't show competence
346:Let me remind you that
53:How to develop articles
746:
398:(communicative norms)
372:
745:
500:is always within the
350:states the following:
138:not telling the truth
328:have to say on this
232:WP:CIR, I'm afraid.
121:Talk:Graham Linehan
93:Knowledge:Questions
79:Please remember to
70:Knowledge Adventure
747:
49:How to edit a page
23:your contributions
820:
605:
604:
561:
502:letter of the law
168:assume good faith
83:your messages on
829:
810:
808:
803:
609:Reply to contact
548:
541:
510:
475:
432:
394:What I said was
320:personal attacks
297:to say on this.
192:personal comment
184:You don't think
104:
837:
836:
832:
831:
830:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
806:
801:
794:
739:
611:
606:
537:
506:
471:
437:
363:personal attack
124:
87:by typing four
34:Getting started
19:
12:
11:
5:
835:
833:
795:
749:You have been
748:
740:
738:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
700:
663:
662:
661:
660:
610:
607:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
439:
438:
435:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
373:
371:
370:
351:
344:
343:
342:
234:
229:
161:
156:
123:
118:
66:
65:
60:
55:
46:
41:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
834:
823:
818:
814:
809:
799:
792:
788:
784:
780:
778:
777:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
744:
736:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
701:
698:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
615:
608:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
542:
540:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
511:
509:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
474:
468:
464:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
433:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
368:
367:contributions
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
278:
274:
270:
267:
266:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
210:
206:
203:
200:
199:, I'm afraid.
198:
193:
189:
188:
183:
182:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
129:
122:
119:
117:
116:
112:
108:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
77:
75:
71:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
16:
776:illegitimate
774:
772:
756:
750:
705:Clicriffhard
664:
650:Clicriffhard
620:Clicriffhard
616:
612:
551:Newimpartial
538:
523:Newimpartial
517:I glyph for
507:
484:Newimpartial
472:
457:
408:Newimpartial
404:disagreement
382:Clicriffhard
366:
355:
354:
332:Newimpartial
314:
283:Newimpartial
280:
273:Newimpartial
268:
262:
237:Clicriffhard
215:Newimpartial
212:
205:Newimpartial
201:
195:
186:
172:Clicriffhard
142:Newimpartial
131:
125:
97:my talk page
95:, ask me on
78:
74:The Teahouse
67:
30:Introduction
20:
697:DanielRigal
636:DanielRigal
324:This is all
107:Epic Genius
463:Crossroads
378:incivility
265:competence
255:generously
102:click here
85:talk pages
783:reverted
773:not for
519:Iceglyph
259:WP:CIVIL
251:feelings
17:Welcome!
807:firefly
787:deleted
779:reasons
769:allowed
757:2 weeks
752:blocked
719:Rendall
683:Rendall
668:Rendall
566:Rendall
539:Tewdar
508:Tewdar
498:conduct
473:Tewdar
467:conduct
299:Rendall
164:Rendall
771:, but
348:WP:CIR
261:, and
197:WP:CIR
170:here?
89:tildes
469:. 😂
190:is a
99:, or
759:for
723:talk
709:talk
687:talk
672:talk
654:talk
640:talk
624:talk
570:talk
555:talk
527:talk
488:talk
412:talk
386:talk
336:talk
326:you
303:talk
287:talk
277:talk
241:talk
219:talk
209:talk
176:talk
146:talk
126:Re:
111:talk
81:sign
51:and
32:and
804:.
785:or
815:·
811:(
793:.
725:)
711:)
689:)
674:)
656:)
642:)
626:)
572:)
557:)
529:)
490:)
414:)
388:)
380:.
338:)
305:)
289:)
271:.
243:)
221:)
194:?
178:)
148:)
113:)
819:)
817:c
813:t
721:(
707:(
685:(
670:(
652:(
638:(
622:(
568:(
553:(
525:(
486:(
410:(
384:(
334:(
301:(
285:(
275:(
239:(
217:(
207:(
174:(
144:(
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.