User:Gryllida/questions/Mattisse

Moved here from Wikinews:Water cooler per Brian McNeil's request. --Gryllida 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Gryllida has recommended that I post here

Gryllida has recommended that I post here for help. A DR has been filed against me for the comments I made on the Comments page of an article at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse. The DR mostly contains edits I made in 2006 on Wikipedia. What should I do? Apparently I have responded wrongly, but I don't know how to defend myself and I am unclear what my behavior on wikipedia has to do with my edits here. Perhaps someone can explain. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can spot one question here, "what my behavior on wikipedia has to do with my edits here". To this I have to respond, that Wikipedia was the first place where many of us went, and some of us know you from there. Some of the actions, including dispute resolutions, resemble what you had there; some of what Brian McNeil asks can be summarized as a request to de-escalate things wherever possible and ask in the right place. This is why I directed you here, Gryllida 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is personally attacking me and filing a DR deescalating things? This is the land of Oz! Please answer. Mattisse (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is anyone willing to be honest and upfront about their problems with me at wikipedia so that I can resolve issues, apologize etc.? Or is it all sub rosa, whispering campaign off wiki? Is that the way this place works? Mattisse (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't find Brian McNeil a easy to understand example here. All he intended to do was

1. Ask you to stop reading the "Trollspace" if you find it inappropriate as a friendly piece of advice;

2. Re-open the DR since the conflicting atmosphere isn't over yet.

The first one was frustrating because a) it was done by further breaking the conversation instead of a light note at your talk page, and b) Brian McNeil dislikes you and thus fails at actually doing this in an educational tone. I wouldn't blame him for either, since he is being repeatedly being one of the conflictees, and may be frustrated too.

The second one is more or less ok, BarkingFish re-opened the issues since they apparently were not resolved yet.

I don't think everyone around is a good example, especially if they intend to do one thing and get the other one as a result of different interpretation; but taking the big stick and de-escalating this would apparently help. --Gryllida 02:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these kind of comments ok at wikinews?

• "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."

• "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.

• Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."

• "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

I am just wondering as I find them unhelpful and unnecessarily mean and hurtful. But if that is the way this place functions, then tell me that is so.

Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed one of our long-term contributors is frustrated about what's happening, had a not so positive impression of your contributions elsewhere and is thus biased, and misunderstands you. Just asking the whatever questions caused that response here should yield another response. --Gryllida 02:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who are the ones that have a "not so positive impression of my contributions elsewhere"? Why is all this sub rosa and a whispering campaign off wiki so that I can never respond to direct accusation. "one of our long-term contributors" - I am so impressed with how forthright and transparent wikinews is. <sarcasm> It is so much better to encourage paranoia by such comments as "not so positive impression of my contributions elsewhere", isn't it? That really encourages trust and community building. No wonder wikinews is such a wonderful, warm place to edit, where editors can take pride in what they do. It is all clear to me now. Mattisse (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

These comments are just signs of frustration by that you interrupted a conversation by a note that an adult should go and stop it. Is frustration common here? No. Should we take that personally? No. Where to ask? Here? --Gryllida 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that "contributions elsewhere" isn't exactly a nice topic here; I'm of course sorry for that it was brought up to you. This shouldn't have happened, but once it does, I do have to say what happened. Gryllida 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment If I make a comment like you did, that "Indeed one of our long-term contributors is frustrated about what's happening, had a not so positive impression of your contributions elsewhere", Brian would accuse me of having a whispering campaign behind his back. He has accused me of that when learn of the two emails I sent you and BarkingFish. Mattisse (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Would like to get some feedback

I have been told by multiple users (my email has been quite full) that it is useless to respond to a DR here, that nothing ever gets resolved and that it continues to be the same-o-same-o. Apparently a not-very-impressive-contributor at wikipedia has started an off wiki campaign to get rid of me here. I have been advised that he will succeed, as everything here is done under the rug. And the few old timers here pretty much discourage honest confrontation of problems. It does seem like all the editors are afraid and nothing real happens on wiki. Is this true, or is there hope that this site can be vibrant again? If so, some transparency would certainly help. My view. Is there any hope for this site, or is it doomed to get a paltry number of hits for its articles? Recently I improved an article after publication (something I've done many times) because it lacked the basic relevant information on an important figure. Guess that is a bad thing to do, so I won't do it any more. I think I am getting the picture now, thanks to Gryllida.

I was blocked for a comment on an article Comment page! wow! Mattisse (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the question here. What is that you are confused with? Can you try to avoid starting new topics if it's an issue which belongs to one of previous ones, so that we can understand what we are discussing? Thanks, --Gryllida 02:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As a wiki, I think there is a substantial amount of transparency, as we all can see who did what. There was no campaign, nothing intended to "get rid of you here", but rather a cultural misunderstanding. Just shaping questions or proposals rather than sarcasm would surely be helpful to everyone. --Gryllida 02:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who are the ones that have a ? You implied that they have influence and are working against me. Why can this person (people) speak out in the open. Brian McNeill mentioned getting "off wiki" information about me that prompted one of his attacks against me. Is this considered "a substantial amount of transparency"? As you have mentioned, the person or persons who "not so positive impression of my contributions elsewhere" how do I find out who this person or peoples are? Hopefully it is not just one person, as that makes it look like a set up. How do you know this information? From transparent communication on wiki? Am I not allowed to confront my accusers? Obviously not.Do you know the phrase kangaroo court? Mattisse (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Transparency

Question By "transparency", do you mean decision-making basing on onwiki actions only? Gryllida 03:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, where I am not put up for check user on the basis of one communitation "off wiki" about my behavior on another site, by an editor whose name is not disclosed. And "one of our long-term contributors is frustrated about what's happening, had a not so positive impression of your contributions ", again unnamed. This is like th Army–McCarthy hearings. Not being able to confront your accusers certainly lacks transparency. Off wiki whisper campaigns to try to block me is not transparentness. Evidence should be based on current behavior. And I should be privy to the information, as should the community. Else how are decisions made? All backroom politicos? There is no counter balance to the one editors "off wiki" accusations which may me wrong. Going for the juglar, as has now been done twice to me is not proper wiki behavior. Brian McNeill's attempts to eduction are not informative and are patronizing. Maybe it would be helpful if he realized that his "gift" is not communication in this context. Mattisse (talk)

Move

Question Can you move away from the way someone "accuses" you to some other sort of problem? (Like I said "they" (Brian McNeil) had initially positive intentions, it just didn't work very well.) --Gryllida 03:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly, if there were some other problems, but there are none. I find most editors helpful and kindly and have no problems other than Brian McNeall and the other editor who feeds him material "off wiki">

If Brian McNeill would stop the personal attacks, I would have no problems here.

• I am just wondering as I find Brian McNeills unhelpful and unnecessarily mean and hurtful. But if that is the way this place functions, then tell me that is so. I really do not have any problems here except from him and that "not so positive impression of my contributions elsewhere". He has blocked me and his policy, as he stated, is to treat new users roughly. So nothing can be done about that. So no, there are no other problems. Many editors are quite kind and helpful, but editors semi scared to voice opinions. Sorry, but I will not produce articles, or copy edit and add references to bring others up to snuff, nor correct the obvious errors in published artices that are so frequent here. Nor add interesting, sourced matter to the skimpy articles that are published. No more fixing up of the Australian students' articles. Sorry. But I take all the threats against me seriously. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question The WN:Etiquette page recommends to forgive and forget. Do you know, or can you imagine, a situation in which doing so would be more helpful? Gryllida 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly am willing to forgive and forget. Is Brian McNeill? Or is he allowed to carry grudges and harbor resentments.I did "forgive and forget" th first time he attacked, demeaned me, humiliated me and requested a check user against policy. And I moved beyond his refusal to reply to the DR I requested . And remember, you were forced into giving that silly response in his behalf that clarified nothing.

• There is no need to do anything. 1. Brian McNeil already saw your comments and took them into account as much as he could - note, there is no need to force him to state that or to apologise, we just realise that he's reading it here! 2. He also agreed to step out at his own talk page, though he was considerably upset by your attitude. Just posting at his talk page in a friendly manner in the first place, instead of posting at administrative places like this, would have made a positive impression. --There is nothing more to be done.

But now yesterday he personally attacked me multiple times on an article Comments page. He attached my competence, insinuated I was an EssJay and a frond, said I didn't know enough to produce competent articles as I had an I.Q. lower than my shoe size.. Then immediately after he filed a DR against me containing no information about recent events on wikinews (which would be appropriate) and concentrated on 2006 edits on wikipedia, edit five years old. Not only that, he did not seem up understand the evidence and misrepresented it. Are you suggesting that the proper course of behavior is to over look the events of yesterday (the multiple person attacks on my on an article Comments page) and today's filing of a DR against me? Please clarify. I realize that he ihe is caught up in what he considers "witticism" and seems unable to empathize, but is it safe to overlook his comments and behavior? There is a reason so many editors were driven off and information "off wiki" is pretty consist ant that he is the reason. (And please forgive me for using "off wiki" information, but I gather that is the norm here. Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question You are not answering any of my questions to you but merely posing more questions. At some point I would appreciate an actual answer to my questions. Mattisse (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • After the comments namespace event, I asked Brian McNeil to avoid talking to you when it involves criticism. He promised to do that and that promise has been kept so far. --Gryllida 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment By raising concerns on his behavior, you show that you don't forgive him (which is a slight fail). You and Brian McNeil not forgiving each other are two different concerns, thanks for pointing that out - but I'm talking about you attempting to forgive and forget him, which includes this question being forgotten. --Gryllida 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

e-mails

* Question How do you find WP:CANVASS concur with the a) e-mailing of your description of Brian McNeil's action to other parties (including me), and b) your emails to the administrator who reopened the DR? --Gryllida 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) removed per response at the water cooler. -- Gryllida 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I guess it is pretty clear now that the Water cooler is completely useless. I have never found it to be of help. And it is controlled so people like me who are targets will note get help. Brian conrols it. There is no place that I can get help here. I'm not following the discussion above. Did you move all of it or leave parts out. I don't understand the questions. Have you read the DR. Brian says quite plainly that he wants me gone.
• I will try to figure out the questions, perhaps reformat it so it makes sense and correct the mistakes made I guess in the tranfer. Really it is quite funny! You recomment the Water cooler and say the DR is not needed. I guess Brian put the cabash on that. I hope in the future you are more careful about referring people to the Water cooler. It all depends who you are whether they you will get help or deeply regret that you posted there. You never know what wierd conspircy Brian will make out of the most innoncent act. Mattisse (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've separated the questions into sections, there are the 'easiness' (1 question) and 'forgive and forget' (3 questions) left now. --Gryllida 09:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Brian McNeil just finds these questions too bulky for the Water Cooler; maybe he is correct with that (he wasn't the only one to hint to that I may need to move that elsewhere) Gryllida 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

where to ask

Generally Water Cooler is where you ask for assistance. But in the current circumstances, we may resort to keeping all your questions here for a while. I'll try to respond in a timely fashion (this concept isn't new, it's been on another wiki I'm on for a while). --Gryllida 09:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New start

I cannot follow the page above, so I will start over and attempt to can an understand.

• (copy of your comment from above)
• Comment By raising concerns on his behavior, you show that you don't forgive him (which is a slight fail). You and Brian McNeil not forgiving each other are two different concerns, thanks for pointing that out - but I'm talking about you attempting to forgive and forget him, which includes this question being forgotten. --Gryllida 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply.

• I am really not following you here. I can make no sense of what you are say. Your say, "By raising concerns on his behavior, you show that you don't forgive him (which is a slight fail)." Are you playing with my head?

I don't understand. He filled a DR on me, listing many behaviors going back to 2006. His point was that I would try to sabatague wikinews, that I would have sockpuppets, etc. Yet he has never responded, never, about his own behavior. Yes I have concerns about his behavior. Of course. I file a DR that he completely ignores. you indicated that he agreed not to attack me (I thought, although your rendition of his thougts in confusing is and really a none answer. I asked you today in this question/answer format what "he agreed to step out of his own talk page". What on earth does that mean? Perhaps if he had responded to my DR and explained himself a little I would understand more what he is trying to say to me by making accusations that I will run sockpuppets, that my work here at wikinews is very poor, that my IQ is lower than my shoe size, that I am a fraud like EssyJay etc. Do you think?

• Question Would you please explain what the following remarks mean and how they are supposed to educate me? (It would be helpful if you would explain the "teaching point embedded in each comment:

• "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies."

• "Oh, act your age - not your shoe size.

• Your reading comprehension skills are pisspoor, you've a persecution complex, and you wilfully ignore good advice."

• "The flip-flopping is worse than a Tory politician. What's an "adult" to do? I'm wondering "how can a forensic psychiatrist have poor reading comprehension skills?" – Relatives of EssJay, I'd certainly understand that failing."

If I understood that these were kindly remarks that addressed the specific issues on the Comments page, and were meant to educate and not to make childish witticisms made at my expense, I would feel better. If you can show me that he is not trying to drive me away, I will feel better. And that the DR he filed, based entirely on wikipedia evidence, most of it six years old, what about that? Is that an atmosphere conducive to forgiveness. You are saying I should just over look the DR. Should I remove my response to the DR in the interest of forgiving him? Mattisse (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment These comments are not educational by themselves. They are a part of frustration. We mustn't take them personally, or seriously here; please try to respond to each of the questions below to find other questions where we agree or disagree. Gryllida 09:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

question about easiness

• Question Would you, assuming if Brian McNeil comes to Wikisource, find it easy to avoid taking his previous interaction here into account when interacting with him there? --Gryllida 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

to forgive and forget

Quote

---

Question The WN:Etiquette page recommends to forgive and forget. Do you know, or can you imagine, a situation in which doing so would be more helpful? Gryllida 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly am willing to forgive and forget. Is Brian McNeill?

<...>

Mattisse (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Do you think that your requests to stop Brian McNeil would be taken more or less peacefully than similar requests of uninvolved party? --Gryllida 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Response.

Don't quite understand the question. Do I think my requests to stop Brian McNeail (do you mean stop him from attacking me and insisting I am a sockpuppet and part of a vast conspiracy to get him?) Well, I have never received anything but rudeness and worse when I have attempted to deal with Brian civilly, so my gut feeling is that any attempt to do so would result in more abuse and Brian would use it as material against me. Besides, I am not allowed to post on his page. If you mean that if I asked another uninvolved person to ask Brian to stop his abusive behavior toward me, I don't think anyone else would be willing to get involved. Too risky for them. You are the only one who has, for which I thank you deeply, but it didn't change his behavior. I would not dare to ask anyone else, as that would bring more accusations of conspiracy down on my head. And probably they would not be willing, as everyone is very careful around Brian. I am afraid to post anything of relevance on anyone's page and now, of course, email is out. So there is no way for me to be part of the community and make such requests.

Question (If "less" to the previous one) If so, do you think it is a wise idea to let someone else carry the big stick in this dispute? Gryllida 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Response

I would love for someone else carry the big stick for me on this dispute. This is the first DR I have ever been seriously a part of. But I doubt anyone would be willing. Everyone is so intimidated by Brian. And he has clearly let it be know that he wants me gone, that I am part of a conspiracy to bring down wikinews, and has publically requested others to find evidence to support his claims in at least two places, one on the Water cooler. Do you think someone would be willing to help me out on this, considering Brian has clearly stated that he wants the evidence against me to be fount? Do you know of anyone who would? Mattisse (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question If you are willing to forgive and forget, can you please actually do so, and let the rest of the community deal with the rest of the events?'

Response

Yes, if they would deal with it. But the first DR showed that the community has no power. Good balanced suggestions were made in the first DR by several editors. What came of it? Nothing! Brian did not weight in and did not agree to anything. He was able to indirectly seem to be responding through that garbled message through you. He did that just to get the DR closed. I kept my part of the bargain and stayed out of his way, but he did not keep his and went out of his way to misunderstand me and attack me on the Comments page. This despite the condensation on the thread was between Blood Red Sandman and me. If you know someone that Brian would actually take serious so that my conerns could be addressed and this nonsense about conspiracy and sockpuppetting could be stopped, I would be eternally greatful. Mattisse (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

--Gryllida 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

work toward agreement

Question Do you agree that Wikinews has a larger degree of community involvement from an average active member? Gryllida 09:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Response

• No. I think wikinews is an extremely small group of maybe 10-15 editors who are not very involved with others, but concentrate on their own pet projects and work in an isolated fashion doing their thing, but no one is what I would consider "active" compared to other wikis. There really does not seem to be a "community" but rather a few people who are interested in pursuing there own interests. There is hardly any communication on wiki at all. Very few posts on user pages or even comments on the collaboration pages. Few posts at the Water cooler. So a post on someone's page sticks out like a sore thumb. Mostly the posts are someone begging to get their article reviewed. Nothing of importance ever seems to be discussed, so it is rather hard to figure out what is really going on, since nothing is transparent. (I will be shot down for this page, wanna bet?) Wikinews is very inactive. In one afternoon it is not unusual for there to be only 10 items in the Recent changes list. Sometimes nothing happens until later in the evening. I was easily the most active member when I was writing articles. Since there are so few recent changes on most days, my activity sticks out and draws attention. I feel that active editors are unwanted here. Mattisse (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Do you think that this also means that each of us has to work toward agreement even if other don't (once again a line from WN:Etiquette) more than at other wikis? Gryllida 09:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am willing, but how does one do it when there is so little communication on wiki. And you must realize that I am about to be blocked for sockpuppets, misusing wiki email, for conspiracy and whispering campaigning, and colluding with that other person that Brian knows is the leader, etc. He has accused me of being a meatpuppet when he plastered the Check user across my page, out of the blue. I was so shocked. What is there to do about this? How do I work toward a resolution of these conspiracy theories? Who is the other person that I am conspiring with? Since all the evidence is apparently collected "off wiki", how can I work toward anything? There is no transparency; everything is hidden except my posts because I am too dumb to be silence.

• I thought wikinews was such a good idea, and I loved the first few months of editing and writing until the accusations and attacks started. The sockpuppet accusation came out of the blue. I have no idea what it was based on, what prompted it, except "off wiki" communications. Oh well. What will be will be. I realy enjoyed it here, and I think I wrote good articles, even if no one else does. And I wrote more in a few months than most editors wrote over a period of years. But I enjoy Wikisource, the Commons and a couple of other sites. Oh well. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to be honest here, so if this is a trap to provide evidence for Brain, I will be crushed. Mattisse (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

remark about emails

Question Gryllida, you said somewhere on this page, I think, that Brian agreed to make no more remarks about me for the time being. Yet currently he is saying at the Water cooler the following:

Quote

---

Additionally, I note Mattisse claims an email "whispering campaign" tells her how horrid I am - obviously urging her to act-out as above. I'm perfectly aware who the chief culprit will be, so what are the community's thoughts on that user being blocked from using email through the wiki? Lastly, Mattisse has attempted to subvert the Dispute Resolution by emailing the administrator who reopened it, then apparently acted contrary to stated intentions in said email.

• So he is continuing his campaign against me to have me blocked/banned or whatever. He is the one who used "off wiki" information to start the Check User, and both you and he refer to the unnamed person persons who disliked me from wikipedia. But I am accused of a vast whispering campaign based on two email.

I don't understand what he means. Why does Brian have a vast conspiracy theory about my behavior? I sent two emails to the two persons I trust and asked for guidance. To say I have "attempted to subvert the Dispute Resolution by emailing the administrator who reopened it, then apparently acted contrary to stated intentions in said email." - what does this mean? I was thinking of BarkingFish as one of the only persons I trusted. There were no stated intentions in said email." I don't have a copy of it, but I know that emails are considered private correspondence and cannot be release to others without the consent of both parties. BarkingFish said he had to recuse because of the email, which was not something I considered and not something I wanted. But it really doesn't matter, as before people made some comments and the DR was suddenly closed with no clear resolution. So I expect the same thing will happen this time. Amigine told me on wiki that DRs were hopeless here.

---

It's difficult to understand why you would ask for assistance via non-public means (though I personally take this, I understand that you were looking for assistance). It's a very common notion that there usually are no "white" reasons for hidden communication. This is part of this wiki culture.You see one of its people say this, and it's better to make this observation, and make a more careful use of email in the future; there is no need to stop and meditate on the "personal attack" interpretation which also is slightly possible here. --Gryllida 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't access this any deeper, I'm not aware what the "intentions stated in email" are, and I'm fine with you changing your mind in a situation like this. You may have wanted to do one thing and then decided to do another one; if it wasn't a promise than it's completely fine. --Gryllida 10:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Reply to email statement

I was not asking for assisted except in the emotion sense, I was asking for advice and direction and expressing my fear. I am way too fearful to post a request on anyone's page. Besides, everthing about me has resulted from "off wiki" communications, the sockpuppet accusations, the unknown editor that doesn't like me from wp. None of this is transparent to me. It has all be conducted in secret. I was afraid to sent the emails, more out of fear of rejection as I did not know email communication was forbidden. I though "off wiki" meant email communication, but I guess not. In any event, I now have no means of communication. I have been effectively isolated. It is rather like living in a Communist state! Big Brother is watching and seeing conspiracies everywhere!

I don't understand the conspiracy bit. And Brian says, "I note Mattisse claims an email "whispering campaign" tells her how horrid I am - obviously urging her to act-out as aboveI'm perfectly aware who the chief culprit will be." Do you? I did not claim an "email whispering campaign"; I sent two emails! Then Brian says, "so what are the community's thoughts on that user being blocked from using email through the wiki?" Really, someone can be blocked just for using email through the wiki? WMF makes it clear that email correspondance is private.

Well, you can see the multiple ways Brain is working to get me blocked. This will be my last post for now. If the atmosphere ever changes I may post again. But for now, no. I am sure that this page will be used against me. So I better leave now. Thanks for you help. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"transparency"

I'm not aware of any people who would be feeling discouraging toward you other than the two with whom you had debates on here.

Bye?

I won't force you to stay, as I see you don't feel very comfortable; if things change, I'll keep you aware of that at your talk page at Wikisource.

In theory, you could work toward agreement in this atmosphere, and just ignore irrelevant comments. It would be a large act of bravery. Some of us had to over-run the review system and collaboration issues at the beginning too; it helped to avoid responding to each comment out there, but rather respond only to those which actually need a response.

I'm just left with seeing you two agree to disagree. I'm sorry to see you go.

Good luck,

--Gryllida 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)