|NewsAndEventsGuy is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia.|
|Although we may disagree, let us do so as rational friends!|
|Finding consensus in a heated environment|
|Always assume it's possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. When others try to make it personal don't shoot back. Instead....
Can you respectfully repeat your opponent's viewpoint, without negating it? Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. The exercise often uncovers simple misunderstandings. see the related essay writing for your opponent.
If you try that and they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith. In that case, stay calm, don't shoot back, and get some outside help from WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE.
Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.
- 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
- 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
- Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.
Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176#Suppress_rendering_of_Template:Wikipedia_books Dirk Hünniger (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)