User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 71

Hi, POTW - while I can understand your concerns, I would be very appreciative if you would at least try to discuss things with me first. I am not some unreasonable editor that you need to bypass to get things done. I was a bit taken back by your reaction to my proposal for an editorial review board because you never even gave me an opportunity to discuss it, and now you've requested a name change for an image. Why don't you at least extend me the courtesy of discussing it first? Atsme^📞📧 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What a bizarre set of accusations. You're welcome to discuss it in any number of forums; I'm not stopping you. And to which "reaction" do you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you considered my request to you as "bizarre" and accusatory because it was not my intention. I will be happy to answer your questions. For starters, your 2 email replies in response to Isaac's concerns (Cc: to me) which were quickly followed by your request for a name change of the image I created: . WP:Project Accuracy has a TP for discussion about the project itself which has been there since early February. There is also . Considering the project is in its early stages of development, and the fact I have been asking for input for quite some time, it would have been a courteous gesture on your part If you had raised your objection with me prior to proposing a name change, the latter of which has already happened. Atsme^📞📧 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, CCing you in to my replies to emails posted apparently on your behalf to a Wikimedia mailing list, soliciting comments about your project. Clearly an attempt to bypass you. Still, good news on the renaming front. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Already we have issues of WP:OWN. Not promising at all and Atsme your notes here only deepen my opposition to this. Atsme, the more you try to make this "yours", the more it is doomed. The more you open it up, the more chance it has to succeed. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It is open, Jytdog, but it doesn't surprise me that you would oppose, or that you would show up here to voice your opposition. Your assumptions have gotten you into trouble before and I really thought you would have learned from those prior experiences. I highly recommend that you try practicing what you preach, and at least try to maintain an open mind. Please stop trying to create things that simply don't exist, like WP:OWN for example. To begin, I did not send out the email POTW responded to, and I have always been open to input and nearly exhausted myself trying to recruit help. This is now beginning to look like a replica of what you did to me at WP:AVDUCK and I hope you realize that, and will immediately stop what you're doing now. It is not helpful. There are some aspects of Project Accuracy that resulted in some positive responses from Drmies as well as Doc James. I reached out to Wikicology for guidance and have also posted invitations here and there, hoping to find editors who can devote some time into helping the project grow. It is quite clear to me that isn't your intention, which is actually quite sad but I've grown accustomed to it over the years. Atsme^📞📧 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

About WP:AVDUCK - you created that mess, Atsme - both its predecessor and the current, mostly ignored version; the community responded quite overwhelmingly, and negatively, before it became exhausted. My take on that fiasco is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

^^^Personal attack by Jytdog noted. Atsme^📞📧 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi Andy Mabbett, Atsme and Jytdog. You have all brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have all engaged in a discussion that is likely to improve "WikiProject Accuracy". It is quiet unfortunate that many comments here include unfriendly accusations and sarcasm. Would each of you be willing to review your comments and revise them so that they focus on questions and concerns about the topic under discussion? I am humbly requesting this revision so that current and future commenters feel that they can participate in the discussion without having to make or receive unfriendly comments. @Atsme:, I fully understand your feelings but I think Andy was a bit perplexed to see "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval" on WikiProject Accuracy page when in reality, the seal has not been reviewed and approved by the community. This seem like a false claim to him and anyone would imagine that too. I understand that you don't mean the seal has been "reviewed and approved" by the community, contrary to Andy's believe. Nonetheless, Andy only suggested that the file be renamed to File:WikiProject Accuracy logo or a more suitable name. Don't be offended and I'm sorry for any inconveniences that this suggestion might have caused you.

The project is still in a developmental stage, and any change can still occur. I will like to say that Wikipedia works because the people in our community really deeply care about the project and this is where the intrinsic motivation is coming because people just absolutely love that they have the choice of what they work on. I believe we can help to reshape "WikiProject Accuracy" to a better form. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)