Difference between revisions of "User talk:Debarra"

User talk:Debarra (edit)

Revision as of 20:05, 19 December 2022

1,402 bytes removed , 1 year ago

Has already been addressed, I do not see what repeatedly bringing up the same topic again and again is meant to achieve. Also again (AFG.)

Debarra

Editors

2,038

edits

Revision as of 04:32, 8 December 2022 (edit) Jofwu (talk \| contribs) m ← Older edit		Revision as of 20:05, 19 December 2022 (edit) (undo) Debarra (talk \| contribs) (Has already been addressed, I do not see what repeatedly bringing up the same topic again and again is meant to achieve. Also again (AFG.)) Newer edit →
::::: While I do agree that the quote is quite meta I do think it notable that the entire page itself is meta and thus I would believe it fits the general tone of it. We simply don't have any canon references to the Shard to use. As well as that I would argue that it is a clear analogy to one of the last two Shards to be revealed, of which the survival shard may be one. The conversation later gives two examples that are the known plans of Odium and Ambition so I do not think it a stretch to imagine that someone like Brandon with such virtuosity in foreshadowing would insert similar hints towards the Survival Shards plan into the conversation. A talk page being opened to discuss the quote on the survival shard's page may be useful however.--[[User:Debarra\|Debarra]] ([[User talk:Debarra\|talk]]) 11:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC) ~~== Handling disagreements ==~~ Debarra, I just wanted to follow up separately about the disagreement regarding the "world" parameter. While I don't think you mean anything personal by it, I can also see how your messages can read as combative or aggressive. Tone is hard to express on the internet, but it is still there and even if not intentional, can come across poorly. Continued combativeness when someone is offering help, comes across poorly. In this case, I think your argument comes across more as critical than constructive, even though you didn't intend it. You can disagree with someone/about something, but subsequent discussion doesn’t need to become an argument. You can state what you feel is correct, and you can do so passionately (we’ve all be there and pretty much ever person in that thread has at one point or another taken a stand on a wiki issue) but it should still be a discussion, not a debate. It might be that I am wrong about this, but my understanding is that Wikipedia sometimes tends towards intense, heated arguments, which is what we want to discourage here. We are a small community and remembering the human on the other side of the screen is important to us. We want to lower the temperature in discussions and focus on creating a place that promotes collaboration` and community. --[[User:Jofwu\|Jofwu]] ([[User talk:Jofwu\|talk]]) 04:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)