It would improve the usefulness of article navigation, if people tended to use the same tag for the same thing.
Your original comment has a plausible interpretation of “do you have quality X, if not, why are you even bringing this up”, which questions the other person’s status and challenges them to prove that they are worthy of even speaking (even if this wasn’t the interpretation that you were intending, it is likely to be read as such by many). A wording such as “that would be useful, but there’s only a limited budget to use on improving the site, and I’m not sure that this is the most useful improvement—of course, if you could put in the programming work to make it happen, that would be great and avoid the budget issue” wouldn’t allow for such an interpretation.
A wording such as “that would be useful, but there’s only a limited budget to use on improving the site, and I’m not sure that this is the most useful improvement—of course, if you could put in the programming work to make it happen, that would be great and avoid the budget issue” wouldn’t allow for such an interpretation.
Such a wording would completely remove the appeal to provide a argued reason as to why implementing this proposal has utility.
I don’t see anything wrong with asking a person who proposed something to argue why implenting his proposal has value.
I don’t argue that Douglas Reay isn’t worthy of speaking but encourage him to speak more.
Such a wording would completely remove the appeal to provide a argued reason as to why implementing this proposal has utility.
Disagree. It establishes your opinion that this proposal wouldn’t be of high value, and thereby appeals the other person to state their reasons for disagreeing, if they have any.
I don’t see anything wrong with asking a person who proposed something to argue why implenting his proposal has value.
I don’t argue that Douglas Reay isn’t worthy of speaking but encourage him to speak more.
I’m not objecting to what you said, just to the way you said it. After reading your follow-up comments, I acknowledge that you did not intend your comment as a status move for silencing him, but this was non-obvious to me from just the initial comment.
This looks like a justification to me:
Your original comment has a plausible interpretation of “do you have quality X, if not, why are you even bringing this up”, which questions the other person’s status and challenges them to prove that they are worthy of even speaking (even if this wasn’t the interpretation that you were intending, it is likely to be read as such by many). A wording such as “that would be useful, but there’s only a limited budget to use on improving the site, and I’m not sure that this is the most useful improvement—of course, if you could put in the programming work to make it happen, that would be great and avoid the budget issue” wouldn’t allow for such an interpretation.
Such a wording would completely remove the appeal to provide a argued reason as to why implementing this proposal has utility.
I don’t see anything wrong with asking a person who proposed something to argue why implenting his proposal has value.
I don’t argue that Douglas Reay isn’t worthy of speaking but encourage him to speak more.
Disagree. It establishes your opinion that this proposal wouldn’t be of high value, and thereby appeals the other person to state their reasons for disagreeing, if they have any.
I’m not objecting to what you said, just to the way you said it. After reading your follow-up comments, I acknowledge that you did not intend your comment as a status move for silencing him, but this was non-obvious to me from just the initial comment.