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/Archiveā¦
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.