![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
I just ran across an old note of mine, reminding myself to support your wish to keep your name. Is that still an issue? If so I will certainly support you; just leave a message on my Talk page telling me where to go (I'd say "leave a reply here," but I can't guarantee I'll see it because I sometimes go days without checking my watchlist, and things get missed).
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, it was an unruly Firefox extension. I've turned it off, so it shouldn't turn up here. Rest of the edit should be good, though, so I'll reinstate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibfulv ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick note that I had removed your PROD from LitPAC: based on what I found, I think it would at least benefit from a full deletion discussion. I'll take it there. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Though likely accidental, you've twice now removed Festal82's comments at Talk:Metamodernism and once inserted [deliberately] a fact tag into his/her comments. Please try to be careful, and don't edit anybody else's talk page comments (as I'm sure you know, the citation needed tag is for articles). WP:TPG lays this all out pretty well. This discussion already teeters back and forth on the brink of incivility, personal attacks, bad faith accusations, and all that fun stuff without stoking the fire more with accidental things. --— Rhododendrites talk | 04:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments like this aren't helpful. If the point is to get a consensus, the fact that more people feel one way or the other is helpful itself. Now that the article more clearly separates the different views, I think that's more in line with your concerns, correct? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks too like WP:DTR for comfort, and if you can find any rudeness against my co-editors at Talk:metamodernism, I would be grateful if you could spell it out to me. Or, are you outing one of 'em as a leading metamodernist? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk: Metamodernism. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that an editor is lying is a personal attack. Even if
User:Steelpillow is mistaken in saying that most of the edits to
Metamodernism have been made by SPA's, the claim that an editor is lying is disruptive.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
I just ran across an old note of mine, reminding myself to support your wish to keep your name. Is that still an issue? If so I will certainly support you; just leave a message on my Talk page telling me where to go (I'd say "leave a reply here," but I can't guarantee I'll see it because I sometimes go days without checking my watchlist, and things get missed).
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, it was an unruly Firefox extension. I've turned it off, so it shouldn't turn up here. Rest of the edit should be good, though, so I'll reinstate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibfulv ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick note that I had removed your PROD from LitPAC: based on what I found, I think it would at least benefit from a full deletion discussion. I'll take it there. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Though likely accidental, you've twice now removed Festal82's comments at Talk:Metamodernism and once inserted [deliberately] a fact tag into his/her comments. Please try to be careful, and don't edit anybody else's talk page comments (as I'm sure you know, the citation needed tag is for articles). WP:TPG lays this all out pretty well. This discussion already teeters back and forth on the brink of incivility, personal attacks, bad faith accusations, and all that fun stuff without stoking the fire more with accidental things. --— Rhododendrites talk | 04:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments like this aren't helpful. If the point is to get a consensus, the fact that more people feel one way or the other is helpful itself. Now that the article more clearly separates the different views, I think that's more in line with your concerns, correct? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks too like WP:DTR for comfort, and if you can find any rudeness against my co-editors at Talk:metamodernism, I would be grateful if you could spell it out to me. Or, are you outing one of 'em as a leading metamodernist? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Talk: Metamodernism. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that an editor is lying is a personal attack. Even if
User:Steelpillow is mistaken in saying that most of the edits to
Metamodernism have been made by SPA's, the claim that an editor is lying is disruptive.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)