![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For retaining your cool against people whose good faith has been abused by cynical manipulation offsite. Guy ( Help!) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
For heaven's sake do stop "WP Pointing" every time some one does not agree with you [1] it is becoming tiresome in the extreme. Giano ( talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Crum375, about your note on Giano's page: please don't template the regulars, and don't threaten somebody you're edit warring with, with blocking. I'm sure you know you're not supposed to use blocks or block threats to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Please take a look at User talk:Green-Dragon#Warning—thanks! -- Green-Dragon ( talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted the indenting on Talk:Brown Dog affair due to my original mistake. Hope you don't mind Nil Einne ( talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, though I feel bad in a way because you, Rockpocket, and Tagishsimon helped a lot. I should really be handing out barnstars to you all. :-)
SlimVirgin
(talk)
(contribs)
21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brown Dog Award | |
For helping to get a fascinating little corner of English history fixed up and on the front page in record time. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not express your views through live policy edits as you did with this edit. [2] Feel free to share your opinion on the talk page with everyone else and participate in the consensus building process. Pushing your opinion through editing is disruptive and especially so when it makes significant alterations to discussed changes. Vassyana ( talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. You are no more allowed to make major changes to policy without discussion than anyone else. My changes were widely advertised and repeatedly discussed and revised according to feedback. Your own were not. You are equally required to propose your changes, no matter how much you think it is in harmony with policy. Vassyana ( talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you give a warning to 69.138.16.202 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? By his contribution patterns, he seems to be wikistalking me, and he's trying to push for blatantly POV terms in two or more articles ( Gamespot/ Eidos Interactive/ Jeff Gerstmann/ Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and Al-Qaeda, the second of which was a revert of me removing the word "terrorist" from the lede due to your post.) Will ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One summary in the Holocaust article is inconsistent with the corresponding full articles due to your edit that deleted a opinion. Please explain on the Talk page, thanks! Harald88 ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the talk page there was never consensus for the "mandatory" language. Worse than that, it's clearly wrong, since polices are not prescriptive, only descriptive, and IAR allows them to be ignored from time to time. Please read the discussion from yesterday on the talk page. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to justify why you conveniently removed my message from AN, and conveniently called it a personal attack. Care to explain? Also, care to explain why you conveniently edited Jeffpw's message at the Requests for Arbitration page? I did not make a personal attack, but want clarification as to why Zeraeph is alllowed to accuse editors of being stalkers. Next time, do not make up such fabrications and try to brush away my comments as a "personal attack". Feel free to disagree with me Crum, but do not try to silence me - such actions by you I condemn. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crum375, it was noticed that you deleted links to external evidence in a current ArbCom case [3]. I appreciate your dilligence in the matter but, just to let you know, the BADSITES policy proposal was rejected by the community and discredited by the recent "Attack Sites" ArbCom ruling so it wasn't necessary to delete those links. Thanks! Cla68 ( talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For retaining your cool against people whose good faith has been abused by cynical manipulation offsite. Guy ( Help!) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
For heaven's sake do stop "WP Pointing" every time some one does not agree with you [1] it is becoming tiresome in the extreme. Giano ( talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Crum375, about your note on Giano's page: please don't template the regulars, and don't threaten somebody you're edit warring with, with blocking. I'm sure you know you're not supposed to use blocks or block threats to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Please take a look at User talk:Green-Dragon#Warning—thanks! -- Green-Dragon ( talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted the indenting on Talk:Brown Dog affair due to my original mistake. Hope you don't mind Nil Einne ( talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, though I feel bad in a way because you, Rockpocket, and Tagishsimon helped a lot. I should really be handing out barnstars to you all. :-)
SlimVirgin
(talk)
(contribs)
21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brown Dog Award | |
For helping to get a fascinating little corner of English history fixed up and on the front page in record time. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not express your views through live policy edits as you did with this edit. [2] Feel free to share your opinion on the talk page with everyone else and participate in the consensus building process. Pushing your opinion through editing is disruptive and especially so when it makes significant alterations to discussed changes. Vassyana ( talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. You are no more allowed to make major changes to policy without discussion than anyone else. My changes were widely advertised and repeatedly discussed and revised according to feedback. Your own were not. You are equally required to propose your changes, no matter how much you think it is in harmony with policy. Vassyana ( talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you give a warning to 69.138.16.202 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? By his contribution patterns, he seems to be wikistalking me, and he's trying to push for blatantly POV terms in two or more articles ( Gamespot/ Eidos Interactive/ Jeff Gerstmann/ Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and Al-Qaeda, the second of which was a revert of me removing the word "terrorist" from the lede due to your post.) Will ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One summary in the Holocaust article is inconsistent with the corresponding full articles due to your edit that deleted a opinion. Please explain on the Talk page, thanks! Harald88 ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the talk page there was never consensus for the "mandatory" language. Worse than that, it's clearly wrong, since polices are not prescriptive, only descriptive, and IAR allows them to be ignored from time to time. Please read the discussion from yesterday on the talk page. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to justify why you conveniently removed my message from AN, and conveniently called it a personal attack. Care to explain? Also, care to explain why you conveniently edited Jeffpw's message at the Requests for Arbitration page? I did not make a personal attack, but want clarification as to why Zeraeph is alllowed to accuse editors of being stalkers. Next time, do not make up such fabrications and try to brush away my comments as a "personal attack". Feel free to disagree with me Crum, but do not try to silence me - such actions by you I condemn. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, -- El on ka 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crum375, it was noticed that you deleted links to external evidence in a current ArbCom case [3]. I appreciate your dilligence in the matter but, just to let you know, the BADSITES policy proposal was rejected by the community and discredited by the recent "Attack Sites" ArbCom ruling so it wasn't necessary to delete those links. Thanks! Cla68 ( talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)