bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
"I was trying to figure out the best way to go about changing the organization of the article by seeking input from people who knew more about the subject it was on than I did."
You have shown no evidence that you are willing to do this. I am still waiting for you to respond to a number of postings detailing the problems posed by your proposals (both on the talk pages and on the mailing list). Since you have failed to respond so far, I'm still concerned about these very same things.
bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
"All I see is someone being irrationally aggressive and possessive of an article I wanted to do some work on."
This is wrong. You made proposals advocating sweeping changes to an article. Then, I responded explaining why I was skeptical, which was the proper route for me to take. You never responded to my points. Instead, you assumed right off the bat that I'm not "very good at collaborating" because I had concerns about your approach to reorganizing an article that you yourself admit to never having read. This is where the break in the rational-give-and-take first appeared.
-172
_________________________________________________________________ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
At 01:37 AM 6/9/2004 +0000, Abe Sokolov wrote:
bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
"I was trying to figure out the best way to go about changing the organization of the article by seeking input from people who knew more about the subject it was on than I did."
You have shown no evidence that you are willing to do this. I am still waiting for you to respond to a number of postings detailing the problems posed by your proposals (both on the talk pages and on the mailing list). Since you have failed to respond so far, I'm still concerned about these very same things.
The relevant talk page and section is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_... and I can't see any posting of yours that I didn't give some sort of a response to, aside from the last one which I left dangling because I'd given my sigh of resignation at that point. As for the postings _here_, I already said several messages back that I didn't think this mailing list wasn't the right place to be discussing the contents of the article itself. I've deliberately skipped responding to those bits to keep focused on the original subject.
bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
"All I see is someone being irrationally aggressive and possessive of an article I wanted to do some work on."
This is wrong. You made proposals advocating sweeping changes to an article. Then, I responded explaining why I was skeptical, which was the proper route for me to take. You never responded to my points. Instead, you assumed right off the bat that I'm not "very good at collaborating" because I had concerns about your approach to reorganizing an article that you yourself admit to never having read. This is where the break in the rational-give-and-take first appeared.
I admitted to not having read the whole thing _yet._ I'd skimmed it and was planning to read it more in-depth later, but you hauled out the threat of an edit war before I got to that point so I wandered off to do other stuff instead. Perhaps you could point out what my approach to reorganizing the article that you object to so strenuously actually _was_, since I don't believe I actually settled on one before quitting? Or, for that matter, why you think I assumed "right off the bat" that you were a poor collaborator? I gave you the benefit of the doubt even when you moved our discussion into an archive subpage and protected it partway through, it was only after the second edit war threat that I decided you were being unreasonable and that it wasn't worth my time fighting you.
Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion on the organization of the article itself, I've got the talk: page watchlisted so just go ahead. I think I've said all I wanted to say about my opinion of your attitude and I don't think it's likely to change at this rate.