[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager (bis)

On 2010-07-29 02:47, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

* 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]:

   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? 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?
What point of views are you referring to?
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
  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.
Careful, I didn't repeat Sune's action here (actually, I did the opposite, I reverted his action).
If you disagree
with the revert, speak with them.

That's not the way it works. If Bob wants to revert a non-vandal change, Bob has to justify his action. If Bob simply reverts without justifying, Alice is free to revert Bob's reversion without giving explanation (indeed, it's hard to imagine what Alice would tell Bob, since she doesn't know Bob's concerns).
   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
  Just because you don't accept the justification doesn't mean there is
I'm not saying I don't accept "the justification", there was just no justification given.

Reply to: