Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager (bis)
Hi!
* Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> [2010-07-29 00:04:59 CEST]:
> On 2010-07-28 09:10, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> * Filipus Klutiero<chealer@gmail.com> [2010-07-28 07:31:41 CEST]:
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2010/05/msg00044.html
>>>
>> Reading the thread shows quite interesting point of views on your site,
>> like working around the acl ban instead of doing collaborative
>> communication work.
>
> What?
What what? I'm sorry, but is it possible to state more clear what is it
that you didn't understand so I can try to rephrase that?
>> Actually I don't notice any approach on discussing either the reason
>> for the change that you tried to force onto the page several times nor
>> does it help. Editing should be done with proper reasoning, not revering
>> with "I don't understand why you reverted so I revert again".
>
> I don't follow you, I did give a proper reasoning: "revert unexplained
> reversion".
That's not proper reasoning, that's a kindergarden behavior. "They did
that too, so I do it also." Two bads doesn't make any good and is
definitely neither a reasoning but also far from proper. If you disagree
with the revert, speak with them. Starting an Edit War and trying to
justify that as "proper reasoning" won't get you anywhere near re-added
commit access.
>> Sorry to say that, but to me, reading the information you handed on,
>> the ban seems quite justified and bringing it up again without any
>> further input on the ground of where and how you tried to discuss your
>> wished changes to the page doesn't help, rather the contrary.
>>
> I don't understand how the ban can seem quite justified when it has no
> justification.
Just because you don't accept the justification doesn't mean there is
no.
Thanks,
Rhonda
--
"Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder
Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte."
-- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/
Reply to: