Wikipedia talk:No, you can't have a pony

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Yes you can have a pony

See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Montanabw/Pony_prize

Enjoy! Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not listening?

Is it possible that sometimes the reason you can't get anyone to reply to you is because they are not listening? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certain that sometimes the reason you can't get anyone to agree with you is because they are not listening. The problem with your recent edit[1] is that it implies that this is always the reason.

This is an example of the dogmatism fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one position is presented as the only acceptable conclusion and the assumption is made that anyone who disagrees must not be listening. Dogmatists are unwilling to even consider opposing arguments or examine evidence to the contrary. Anyone who disagrees with the position must not be listening, because anyone who listens simply has to agree with the position.

In real life there are multiple reasons why someone might disagree with you. You might be wrong. You might be right but have failed to present a compelling argument. Or they might not be listening.

Note that in the above I changed "the reason you can't get anyone to reply to you" to "the reason you can't get anyone to agree with you" because that is what your edit[2] implied. If you actually have a problem with not being able to get anyone to reply to you, the reason is usually that they have examined you past behavior and decided that responding to you is a waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK the wanna-pony-er has been listening to but failed to get consensus for the pony. " no matter how much you try to convince others to see it your way, you won't be able to sway others. " One reason for this could be that you are wrong, hopefully the discussion would enable you to figure that out eventually. However I think the point of this essay is that even when you are right you might be unable to win the argument - is that interpretation correct? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "right". If you can back up your position with solid citations to reliable third-party sources and the other side can not, then you will "win" in the sense that the article will end up reflecting what is in the sources. I wrote an essay about this at WP:1AM that you might find to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]