User talk:FerrisEuler

Civil

Does not usually mean "I am trying to be civil when I say you do not know what you have clouded judgement". You might want to read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Not sure I'm following, could you elaborate? I think that maybe you've combined "civil" and "clouded judgement", in reference to my behavior where it ought not to be. When I said "civil", I was referring to reigniting a discussion that was previously disregarded after a user X was referenced as throwing a "temper tantrum". I, while not condoning the form of the discussion taking place, thought user X mentioned a point worth discussing, as I thought their suggestion could improve the article. In other words, I wanted user X's point to be discussed (and not disregarded) in a "civil" manner. I'm sure we could ask user X about this, and they would not consider it a personal attack by any means, let alone by WP:NPA standards. As for the "clouded judgement" statement, that was more in regards to some edits on the original page that we were discussing on the talk page, and were not directed towards any specific user(s) (in truth, I don't even know who made the edits I'm suggesting be revised). Anyways, I don't think it's against WP:NPA to say "hey, I don't think the article is in its ideal form, and I think that it's possible that political opinions have crept their way into the page". Anything I do on a Talk page will always be in good faith, not just because of personal standards, but because it yields the best probability of having your suggestions heard. -Ferris