Content deleted Content added
AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →So?: If someone is incapable of communicating in the relevant language, it isn't in anyone's interest to pretend that they can. |
|||
Line 398:
:::::That makes more sense than attacking the poor writing skill of the editor. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Stating the self-evident isn't an 'attack', and nor does it lack sense. The IP seems still to fail to understand what the problem is with their contributions, and bogus obfuscation wouldn't make it clearer. If someone is incapable of communicating in the relevant language, it isn't in anyone's interest to pretend that they can. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 07:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Well, what is "self-evident" to some, for others it may be simply considered absence of arguments or selective ones (for example, the ''"'write first and then find sources to back it up' editing"'' way, it seems to be one of main problems of the present version), not to mention that try to emphasize an '''[[ad hominem]]''' reduction to close the question don't help nothing...
:::::::Also, history and everyday life is full of examples regarding problems of language even among natives of an same language used to selectively ignore issues, use double standards or itimidate impressionable people.
:::::::Anyway, in order to not make this too long and considering the ''good faith'' of most people, and not lose the focus here, for each one, what aren't clear in proposed paragraphs?
:::::::[[Special:Contributions/177.33.159.133|177.33.159.133]] ([[User talk:177.33.159.133|talk]]) 14:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||