User talk:Dr. Edmonds: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
(→Valuing the time of your readers: - about my "overinflated sense of self importance"....) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] I realize this is '''your wikipage''' but if you want people to spend their time adding to it you should show some appreciation for the time they put in. Your power on this site has given you an overinflated sense of self importance. Last week you were using this power to demand that several people spend their time explaining a well accepted concept to you or you would not let the statement on the page. I do not recall any of them charging you for their time. This is a collaborative community and if you keep acting like the king here I am not going to be able to find people who want to contribute. This is only a tool and there are others. I was the one that spoke to a few dozen experts and talked them into adding content. The recent upswing in new content was largely because [[User:Psephomancy]] and myself persuaded many people from the CES forum and other groups that it was worth while to contribute. I was just about to do the same for the other advocacy topics and had hoped that "Government Formation" could serve as a Kernel for this. As for the new page that you really want to trash, [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] (who has also added a ton of content lately) pointed out that Condorcet methods were not in the discussion of government formation so the wording was unclear. Condorcet methods are not in this discussion at all by any group or member of parliament I have worked with on this. This means it was a pretty easy thing to leave out. He fixed it as I would expect and I appreciate the insight. You are trying to phrase it in a very different way than what actually happened. This is not good for the community. You criticized the content without even reading it. There are tons of stubs and low quality articles all over this site. I have already fixed a ton of them and I had intended to keep going. However, if you say that all new content must be 100% perfect and not have any gaps (even those which exist in the advocacy and literature) you are making this work impossible. I think its weird that advocacy is mentioned on the main page at all. I added a link to a large and missing topic just as [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] added Condorcet to the gov formation page. My edit to the main page actually sparked a rephrasing of the whole page. This was my understanding of how wikipages should work. If you do not think my edits on electowiki are generally useful I will stop making them. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 05:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC) |
: [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] I realize this is '''your wikipage''' but if you want people to spend their time adding to it you should show some appreciation for the time they put in. Your power on this site has given you an overinflated sense of self importance. Last week you were using this power to demand that several people spend their time explaining a well accepted concept to you or you would not let the statement on the page. I do not recall any of them charging you for their time. This is a collaborative community and if you keep acting like the king here I am not going to be able to find people who want to contribute. This is only a tool and there are others. I was the one that spoke to a few dozen experts and talked them into adding content. The recent upswing in new content was largely because [[User:Psephomancy]] and myself persuaded many people from the CES forum and other groups that it was worth while to contribute. I was just about to do the same for the other advocacy topics and had hoped that "Government Formation" could serve as a Kernel for this. As for the new page that you really want to trash, [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] (who has also added a ton of content lately) pointed out that Condorcet methods were not in the discussion of government formation so the wording was unclear. Condorcet methods are not in this discussion at all by any group or member of parliament I have worked with on this. This means it was a pretty easy thing to leave out. He fixed it as I would expect and I appreciate the insight. You are trying to phrase it in a very different way than what actually happened. This is not good for the community. You criticized the content without even reading it. There are tons of stubs and low quality articles all over this site. I have already fixed a ton of them and I had intended to keep going. However, if you say that all new content must be 100% perfect and not have any gaps (even those which exist in the advocacy and literature) you are making this work impossible. I think its weird that advocacy is mentioned on the main page at all. I added a link to a large and missing topic just as [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy]] added Condorcet to the gov formation page. My edit to the main page actually sparked a rephrasing of the whole page. This was my understanding of how wikipages should work. If you do not think my edits on electowiki are generally useful I will stop making them. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 05:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: I've long suspected that you had little respect for me. By reading about your belief that I have "an overinflated sense of self importance", it seems my hunch was correct. I suspect you don't care about my opinion, given the number of assumptions you make about me and what I hope to achieve with Electowiki without asking a single question in your 400+ word essay above. I don't have any further questions for you at this time. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 23:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||