Content deleted Content added
Aontaím le Guliolopez
Tuigim, ach b'fhéidir go mba mhaith leat scrúdú níos géire a dhéanamh ar an scéal? Ceapaim go raibh míthuiscint ann.
Líne 12:
 
Thanks Mangaire for explaining your actions. However, I'm with Guliolopez - if a change is possibly contraversial, it should be discussed until there is some kind of consensus. If you feel that your proposal is not generating adequate discussion, then escalate it to the Riarthóirí. If we really want to talk about being abrupt and unfair, the only example that I have seen lately is your comment on the [[Seán Óg de Paor]] article "CABHRÓIDH MÉ LEAT A SHEÁIN. IS IOMAíí FADHB ATÁ DEISITHE AGAM. DáLA AN SCÉIL, AN DTUIGEANN TÚ AN TUISEAL GINIDEACH?". The Vicipéid is a community, in which respect for the genuine efforts of others is the key, so please try to keep these kind of comments to yourself. Cheers. --[[Úsáideoir:Antóin|Antóin]] 18:45, 20 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)
 
A chara, I thank you for the message, but in truth if you read the Plé I had already fully explained my actions on there prior to making the actions in question, just the explanations were it seems ignored and unanswered!
 
But is it indeed the case that you don't think it's unfair that when after a week nobody has answered my attempts to initiate discussion on the page or given any reasons to oppose my suggestion and I accordingly go ahead with my proposals I get a message which seems to accuse me of wrongdoing implying that I made unilateral improper changes after only allowing 24 hours for counter-arguments? Possibly this was not in truth GLopez's intent but that's the impression I get when I read it.
 
Maidir le "cabhróidh mé leat", cathain a dúirt mé na rudaí sin ar an alt Seán Óg de Paor? Chonaic mé ar an alt faoi Sheán Óg de Paor agus ní fheicim é.
 
I thank you for the tip on "escalating it to the Riarthóirí" if this is indeed a rule on Vicipéid when nobody answers your attempts to initiate discussions on a Plé page after a week. What might be the usual procedure for this?
 
It is not my intention to argue that my actions have been always gan locht but it seems to me that others are not entirely blameless and certainly may have caused misunderstanding through apparently not reading things carefully enough. And certainly I cannot in conscience agree that GLopez's message was entirely fair in what it, perhaps unintentionally, seemed to me to imply as explained above in this message. Perhaps you would like to make a fuller examination of what I actually did and what it seemed to me when I read the message I was accused of doing? I feel there has been some misunderstanding in this matter and must protest at the idea that it was fair to accuse me of the things which I explained the message perhaps unintentionally appeared to imply. After the course of action I followed to say "Please stop moving this page unilaterally after some self-imposed deadline." and "Statements like "I'll wait 24 hours for a counter argument, else I'm moving" are not in the spirit of WP:CON." seems unjust as it is certainly not an accurate description of my actions. Again, I must feel that GLopez perhaps did not fully understand the course of events. I would be more satisfied if he were to furnish some explanation of why he represented my actions in this somewhat misleading way.[[Úsáideoir:Mangaire|Mangaire]] 19:33, 20 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)