![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
RE. this: HOW do I talk to you if you close the thread in which we're talking instead of answering the questions I posed to you within it?-- Elvey( t• c) 04:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here. The important thing is that the uncivil comments were removed. Does it really matter what method is used to remove them or whether a template or nothing at all is left in their place? What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations?
I said to Tarc:
This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". (Your #2 above is misleading because it omits that and that you admit elsewhere that you reverted it unread.) But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. I ask for apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously.
Clearly he and you don't care about any of that, or what it took for uncivil comments to be removed. Admins should consider how Tarc responds to these requests, as well as the sympathetic comments by Pudeo, and User:Dr. Blofeld. You won't. They won't, since you closed the thread. Such is life. Now let's ALL drop the stick, OK? -- Elvey( t• c) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimeddon't make sense, too many double-negatives, 2) you did not receive an apology, nor will you ever, because I do not feel you are owed one, 3) Pudeo and Blofeld are editors with whom I have had past negative interactions with. That is the primary flaw of ANI, in that it invites those with past grudges to pile on. And with that, good day. Tarc ( talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The diffs I gave (in my ANI OP) clearly prove you spread a falsehood, Tarc. Here they are:
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? He went and added a Pinocchio image to yesterday's closed discussion. Tarc ( talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Now 1000 miles in 15 hours is a big deal, not no 1332 in 3 days! Denver–Chicago, baby!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Ed,
I saw on this one article,
this edit caused the report to be posted twice. I wanted to remove the duplicate content but thought I'd run it by you first. What do you think?
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
Hi Ed, I saw your reply to my oppose GamerPro64's RFA. I cannot respond there since it's been closed by I wanted to follow up since you took the time to read my oppose statement and respond to it. I initially had to read his statement twice on Q5. The first time I took it to mean the way you indicated. When I re-read it, I took it to mean a vote count. The reason why is the second statement, "Unless there's another vote for delete soon it should be kept up". That suggests to me he's counting votes. Let's say the three support votes have policy based arguments (and he's reading WP:CONSENSUS correctly). Then another delete !vote comes along with an WP:ATA such as " I don't like it". Why would that delete !vote prevent it him from determining a consensus that had enough "participation"? It wouldn't if he wasn't vote counting. I'm not the only one who took it to mean vote counting: StringTheory11, Biblioworm, BenLinus1214 and even some supporters (moved to moral supprt). Mkdw talk 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Making sure you got my reply? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what the process was, she said she was open for recall until it looked like she might be recalled, then it was ArbCom is thataway
. Only after it was all over did she become open to recall again. Of course, if it comes up again, she can opt out yet again. You may be good with that type of behavior—I'm not and see it as a problem.
BTW, Eric got hung by a two-person lynch mob in just under 150 minutes. That's far less time than her recall process would have taken. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) Responding to a different aspect of GregJackP's comments, the reason the ArbCom has always consisted of only administrators is that the community, in the annual secret-ballot elections, has elected only administrators. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
re this. Don't worry, I've learned my lesson. While I disagree with your judgement, I understand how it may look for a person who doesn't want waste time in minor bickering to figure out who is righter. From now on, when I see a stubborn person, the first thing I start from talk page, the go to dispute resolution. Any one-on-one pissing contest looks stupid from the outside regardless who is right. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
RE. this: HOW do I talk to you if you close the thread in which we're talking instead of answering the questions I posed to you within it?-- Elvey( t• c) 04:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here. The important thing is that the uncivil comments were removed. Does it really matter what method is used to remove them or whether a template or nothing at all is left in their place? What should matter is that they are gone and we should all be satisfied with that outcome. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so adamant about ignoring and hushing up any discussion about Tarc's policy violations?
I said to Tarc:
This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". (Your #2 above is misleading because it omits that and that you admit elsewhere that you reverted it unread.) But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. I ask for apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously.
Clearly he and you don't care about any of that, or what it took for uncivil comments to be removed. Admins should consider how Tarc responds to these requests, as well as the sympathetic comments by Pudeo, and User:Dr. Blofeld. You won't. They won't, since you closed the thread. Such is life. Now let's ALL drop the stick, OK? -- Elvey( t• c) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimeddon't make sense, too many double-negatives, 2) you did not receive an apology, nor will you ever, because I do not feel you are owed one, 3) Pudeo and Blofeld are editors with whom I have had past negative interactions with. That is the primary flaw of ANI, in that it invites those with past grudges to pile on. And with that, good day. Tarc ( talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The diffs I gave (in my ANI OP) clearly prove you spread a falsehood, Tarc. Here they are:
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? He went and added a Pinocchio image to yesterday's closed discussion. Tarc ( talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Now 1000 miles in 15 hours is a big deal, not no 1332 in 3 days! Denver–Chicago, baby!-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Ed,
I saw on this one article,
this edit caused the report to be posted twice. I wanted to remove the duplicate content but thought I'd run it by you first. What do you think?
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
Hi Ed, I saw your reply to my oppose GamerPro64's RFA. I cannot respond there since it's been closed by I wanted to follow up since you took the time to read my oppose statement and respond to it. I initially had to read his statement twice on Q5. The first time I took it to mean the way you indicated. When I re-read it, I took it to mean a vote count. The reason why is the second statement, "Unless there's another vote for delete soon it should be kept up". That suggests to me he's counting votes. Let's say the three support votes have policy based arguments (and he's reading WP:CONSENSUS correctly). Then another delete !vote comes along with an WP:ATA such as " I don't like it". Why would that delete !vote prevent it him from determining a consensus that had enough "participation"? It wouldn't if he wasn't vote counting. I'm not the only one who took it to mean vote counting: StringTheory11, Biblioworm, BenLinus1214 and even some supporters (moved to moral supprt). Mkdw talk 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Making sure you got my reply? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what the process was, she said she was open for recall until it looked like she might be recalled, then it was ArbCom is thataway
. Only after it was all over did she become open to recall again. Of course, if it comes up again, she can opt out yet again. You may be good with that type of behavior—I'm not and see it as a problem.
BTW, Eric got hung by a two-person lynch mob in just under 150 minutes. That's far less time than her recall process would have taken. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) Responding to a different aspect of GregJackP's comments, the reason the ArbCom has always consisted of only administrators is that the community, in the annual secret-ballot elections, has elected only administrators. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
re this. Don't worry, I've learned my lesson. While I disagree with your judgement, I understand how it may look for a person who doesn't want waste time in minor bickering to figure out who is righter. From now on, when I see a stubborn person, the first thing I start from talk page, the go to dispute resolution. Any one-on-one pissing contest looks stupid from the outside regardless who is right. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)