User:GyaroMaguus/sandbox

Message to Prisonermonkeys on advice on how to be a good talk page discusser
I have hidden this but the text remains <!-- ''This is slightly altered from the original message. Adjustments have also been made to the indentation.''


 * As a warning, this is very long. I would advise opening this page up on a computer and editing the replies on the phone.
 * I'm just going to tell you everything I think you do wrong, and more, in the hope it changes you. Firstly, I hate to say this, but the problem is you.  Sure, nobody here has as good as an angel, but you are the problem here.  I looked through your talk page and your archives and I counted eighteen occasions where you have been accused of edit-warring, four of which have resulted in blocks.  You are quite clearly not learning from your mistakes.  Let me give you an example of how to do this:
 * Imagine you are, like me, a university student who likes to party. If you were refused entry into a club (or chucked out of one) for being too drunk, you could consider it a one-off.  If it happens again, you may feel inclined to look into your drinking habits to ensure it doesn't happen again.  If it happens a third time and you still refuse to do anything about it, then you are being an idiot because you are obviously doing something wrong.  If all of these happen to occur at the same club, and you get refused entry for a fourth time even though what you did was not as bad as before, you have gained a reputation and you will be haunted by that for as long as you insist on clubbing there.  Now, it may be fine to club there – on a good day, you'll get in and no-one will mind – but you will not be able to ever go there without worrying 'well, if I drink too much again before we go there, I might never be able to go back'.
 * Please apply to same mindset to Wikipedia. We want you to edit here – you are an immensely useful editor – but your attitude to the project is just plain wrong.  On that point, your talk page discussion tactics are, quite frankly, awful.  We have very few participants in talk page discussions because the arguments you raise with Tvx1 are IQ-droppingly awful, and no-one wants to get involved in a two-week-long discussion about something so insignificant as, well, I can't actually think of anything less insignificant than the alignment of the word "TBA".  Let me analyse you techniques and where I feel you can do better:
 * Firstly, you come up with your stance. There is no problem there.
 * Secondly, you insist your stance is correct. You remain way too strong in this part.  You need to loosen up here.  Other people will disagree with you on a controversial topic.
 * Thirdly, you struggle to agree to compromises, let alone suggest them. A compromise is best when (a) it includes aspects from sides or (b) it changes the problem so a new solution would be required, of which it clearly is the best one.  Try it properly sometime.
 * Fourthly, you struggle to admit defeat when the consensus is clearly against you (e.g. Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04). I know, it is hard.  I have done so in the past.  I even once changed sides and later proceeded to completely destroy one of my own arguments.  But sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.  You have to accept that, and know when to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
 * Fifthly, when everything isn't going you way, you revert to shouting out every single policy or guideline you can think of. Not cool man, especially when your insistence that everyone applies WP:AGF to you is done without assuming WP:AAGF, WP:AAAGF or WP:AAGFAAGF of them.
 * Sixthly, you don't attack the opposition's arguments very well. Simply put, in a discussion, rather than bludgeon my point through, I attempt to stall the other side's argument by asking critical questions, which, if not answered properly, could pull down the argument.  This also has the effect of me gaining an improved understanding of their argument, and in the process, mine may become weaker.
 * Is that all, you wonder? No.  You appear to be unable to comprehend, let alone admit, that anything you do could be wrong.  Now, as a guy with a high (untested) IQ, I understand.  I know I am often right.  I know I am likely to be one of the most intelligent people in a group, if not the most intelligent.  I, however, never assume that I am definitively always right, because, you know, I am a human being, with opinions and views and whatnot.  You need to admit that what you for the most recent block could have been viewed as a 3RR violation (which I admit I got wrong).  You need to understand that you actions, including those on the talk page were out of order.
 * You also need to accept that you actions can, and most likely from now on, will have consequences. You seriously run the risk of being blocked permanently.  Let me use one of the pre-block discussions:
 * Here is what you did: You wrote an edit summary that stated that you were reverting. Then you went onto the talk page and stated your argument for the exclusion of the information.  Three of us (including me) proceeded to disagree with you.  So, following this, you decided to put the information back, in the form of footnotes, stating in the edit summary that this was the start of the procedure.  After this, you went back to the talk page, stated you made the change, and continued arguing your point.
 * Here is what you said you did: You reverted the information in order to ready the article for the footnotes, which you later added.
 * It just doesn't add up, does it? I do like myself of good bit of AGF, but I cannot do anything but give a bit of WP:ABF.  Note there how I made no reference to any timeframe or device.  Your edits are still out of order.
 * And finally, you need to respect the other editors. I feel like the only editor that you are willing to actually listen to and take ideas onboard from.  You need to respect other people like Burgring.  Yes, he (incorrectly, it turns out) accused you of violating 3RR, but your responses were not appropriate.  You deal with Tvx1 like he is a nuisance.  And your treatment of Joetri10 was poor.
 * I hope you read this in full and, should you choose to, reply in a respectful manner. Please attempt to not ignore any points, even if this forces you to make many edits or to focus on individual parts.  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 13:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC), adjusted on 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

-->
 * Note 1: I had previously offered to archive the talk page. I still think this should be done.
 * Note 2: