User talk:Doru001

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 16 October 2015 by Doru001 in topic Reply style

Root command

Hi, your change of this commit removing # which is wrong according to Help:Style#Command line text. If you have time, please fix them. Thanks. -- Fengchao (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of that is Freebullets Talk commit. I have corrected my stuff. Doru001 (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Close. -- Fengchao (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply style

I appreciate your thoroughness in replying on Talk:Pacman, but your line-by-line rebuttals are massive and make the discussion extremely hard to follow. I realize that Kynikos started it with a line-by-line rebuttal of one of your replies (I have no idea why he found that necessary), but you can help to deescalate the situation by leaving shorter, clearer responses. Long talk pages are difficult to follow, even without multiple levels of nested quotations. Silverhammermba (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it necessary because, despite Alad's effort to rationalize the discussion and propose something new on top of Lahwaacz's notes in Talk:Pacman#Don't rush updates, Doru001 ignored that and insisted on requesting an answer to his arguments (again) even though his arguments have already generated at least 5 discussions (and I hope I haven't forgotten any) without any useful results. I tried to clearly point out that all the explanations he wants to introduce are already there, but without success apparently.
Anyway, I'd also like to remind Doru001 that editing talk page posts after somebody has replied is forbidden by Help:Discussion#Joining a discussion.
(And please, let's not start talking about the pacman article here too)
Kynikos (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The explanations are there in different places, but they are not connected logically into an explanation of what is needed here.
I tried to avoid modifying my posts after they have been answered and I am not aware that I did such a mistake.
Ah, you mean the chronological order of my answers to a given post? I did not realise that it was that important. They were my answers. And you always read everything, don't you? :)
About rationalization of discussion, Alad and you have chosen to ignore my proposed structure for this presentation, whether it was plainly written as a page, presented as a bullet list, supported with punctual arguments etc. Doru001 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for cluttering the page, but I find it impossible to argue rationally if I don't answer punctually. The guidelines state that "It is possible to split a discussion in order to reply to different parts of a post separately, but you will have to copy the signature of the split post at the end of every resulting section.", but I did not know it at the time and I did not want to edit other people's posts. Anyway, I am not going to continue for long. This is a high level problem and interested contributors outside the inner circle will probably have no time to see it before deleted. Also, I don't believe that I can save reason and common sense by myself on this page. Doru001 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]