« first day (1639 days earlier)      last day (60 days later) » 

7:06 AM
@AsafKaragila, @AlexanderGruber: This post is potentially being subjected to a close-delete-undelete war. Just letting you people know about it because I am not sure whether flagging is an appropriate action in this case.
And by the way, @AsafKaragila, it was good to see you to be pingable in this room as you seldom are.
 
 
8 hours later…
3:07 PM
@AsafKaragila belated congrats on your Ph.D.
@XanderHenderson did anybody ping @BillDubuque indicating why his edits were reverted? I would expect misunderstanding otherwise
 
3:23 PM
@user334732 In the very comment to which you have replied, I pinged him.
 
3:42 PM
@XanderHenderson sounds like "four edits and you reverted them every single time" had already happened by that point.
 
3:57 PM
@user334732 I'm not sure that I see your point. I was not involved in the edit war, and only became aware of it after the fact. I am not sure what you want me to do (or have done?) about it.
Regarding the misunderstanding, Bill likes to point out that he has been here for a very long time, and knows the conventions of the site better than most. As such, I would expect him to be aware of the consensus that using MathJax for formatting is discouraged, and I would have expected him to have understood the reasoning behind the edits.
 
4:18 PM
@XanderHenderson apologies, my comment would only be relevant to anybody involved in the edit war. If my edit of my own question was reversed without explanation I might have edited it right back too.
 
@user334732 The fourth version of the question, which is the first time the title was edited by someone other than Bill, gave "No need for any text formatting in titles" as an edit summary. Asaf also left a comment after his first rollback (which corresponds to Version 10).
 
@ArnaudD. sounds clear enough
 
 
2 hours later…
6:21 PM
@XanderHenderson It is rather sad that you continue to attempt to put your pejorative words into my mouth. This is extremely nonconstructive. For the umpteenth time: if you wish to quote me then please do so properly, with a link.
@XanderHenderson This was a common tactic in the early days of the meta site - twisting the words of political opponents. It is sad that this despicable behavior persists even a decade later. It's no wonder we can't attract many users to meta. Who wants to suffer such ad hominem attacks?
 
7:09 PM
@user334732 Please see above (in particular, Xander Henderson's claim that "Bill likes ..." does not correspond to anything that I wrote on this matter - they are his words, not mine). In any case, thanks for your concerns.
 
7:32 PM
@BillDubuque We're all apt to feel attacked from time to time, and our ego injured although the "attacker's" primary intention was often to defend their own ego and it was often an unintentional side-effect that another's was injured. Your latest comment aims to defned yourself but Xander will feel attacked by it.
@BillDubuque often there's a great deal to be gained by not taking exception and moving on even in the face of apparent unfairness and unjustified attacks.
I think what was said to you could have been said better
and it's often difficult to avoid touching raw nerves etc.
@BillDubuque it makes me sad when I see some people on here not getting along. Really we're all dead in the end and none of thiswill matter.
 
@BillDubuque In multiple discussions I have had with you, you attempt to shut down discussion by making some comment about the fact that I have not been around long enough to know the history. I put no words in your mouth; I only described this pattern of behaviour which you exhibit.
If you find it unflattering, mayhaps you might consider not engaging in that habit anymore?
 
@XanderHenderson Maybe being overly concerned with setting the record straight just prolongs and exacerbates any disagreement, when none of it actually matters.
 
7:50 PM
@XanderHenderson You tried to dismiss my (valid) claims of bias by writing "I see no evidence of persecution". (I never wrote "persecution"). I responded that you weren't around in the early days of the site when this happened, so it is not at all surprising that you may have never seen them. Then you twisted my words by claiming I wrote "you haven't been around long enough to have an opinion" (my emph). Then you twisted my words again later - just as you did many times in the past. Not nice.
It's difficult enough as it is to have constructive discussion between those of widely differing political views. With such shenanigans it's almost impossible. Please stop.
@XanderHenderson I don't find anything unflattering since those are your words not mine. But I do find it to be extremely nonconstructive (and quite immature to boot).
@user334732 My concerns have absolutely nothing to do with "ego". Rather they have to do with stopping the politically motivated attacks that continue to be used in attempt to tarnish the reputation of political opponents.
 
8:25 PM
@BillDubuque I only mean "injured ego" in the sense of a "perceived tarnishing of reputation", rather than any meaning that might imply "a big ego" in an unhealthy or inappropriate way.
 
 
1 hour later…
9:49 PM
im late at office
any admin?
 

« first day (1639 days earlier)      last day (60 days later) »