![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reality check (not sarcastic). Apparently I needed one. =( Time for some fresh air methinks. -- mboverload @ 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
{talkback|Ron Ritzman}
Your assistance would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do Sarah Palin related pages have to do with the so-called ID Cabal?
I've yet to see an answer. Can you give me one? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It was looking a bit light for a 5x increase in text in 5 days to qualify. Ive added a bit ... can you do some? Hook will have to be changed I think as there is an older one mentioned in a blog Victuallers ( talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you add this to the ANI page - its not loading for me atm: "Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)"~Thanks Foz. Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for the addition to the Stanford Super Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.3.184 ( talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't done a request for arbitration before and wasn't sure if the template was automatically generated to include the detail posted in (rather than blanking it). Apologies for the damage. I'll redo the request, hopefully properly.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
is this how? i received your message. you should be pleased to note i replaced all of the references that had been deleted and regarded all parts of that page. further, i have referenced everything added, and must point out that a neutral point of view does not equal a positive only. to be neutral means to state facts - which is all that has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlucy ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy your day at Wikipedia. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This was well-needed. I'm not sure it was heeded, but I salute you for trying to cool down a heated situation, and bring people back down to earth. There are too many people who get turned off from Wikipedia precisely because of the heated infighting that occur in situations like these, and I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to calm the fury were not overlooked. Have a great day!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fozz could you explain what you mean here. BigDunc Talk 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help with the Gilpen situation, I figured it would probably be best deleted. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think I've given you the wrong end of the stick -- we're still looking at the form these proposals should take -- we won't start voting for a while yet! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie, may I draw your attention to what I beleive is a an abusive attack on Domer48. His has had his ability to talk on his own page removed for spurious reasons; he has had a punitive block on the outrageous charge of "template abuse". So, yet another Irish editor who is seeking to remove British pov from Ireland-related articles is being silenced? Is this how Wiki generates "consensus"? Block all the dissenting voices? Sarah777 ( talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting spurious unblocks? Back that up please. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Must I ask again? Requesting spurious unblocks? Could you tell me why my page was blocked? My first request was rejected because of "throwing wild accusations" as was my second. So without been given the oppertunity to illustrate my concerns, it was rejected. So my "wild accusations" were not even presented, and they were rejected. My third request was rejected because I did not request to be unblocked, I was asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. So having to clarify what I was looking for, I placed another request, and got blocked. Now please explain how I was requesting spurious unblocks? Alison, please explain were was the "unblock abuse?" -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I was not abusing the unblock request. So why was I blocked? I was making a genuine attempt per our blocking policy and it was rejected. Why was it rejected? It appears to me that you have a judge who makes a determination without hearing the evidence? So admins are no clairvoyant in that they are able to divine my intensions, and describe my concerns as “wild accusations?” Since Tznkai seems to think there is more to this whole issue, and in my attempt to raise it resulted in my being blocked, I would like Fozz to explain Why the bloody blue blazes was my page locked after my fourth request? I want Fozz to explain why he considers my requests to be spurious? Now here is my unblock requests, were they handled correctly? -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Looks like you'll have your handsfull for a bit, by grab me by whatever communication method strikes your fancy when you get a chance.--
Tznkai (
talk)
02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Unidentified man in green firing turret ( talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reality check (not sarcastic). Apparently I needed one. =( Time for some fresh air methinks. -- mboverload @ 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
{talkback|Ron Ritzman}
Your assistance would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do Sarah Palin related pages have to do with the so-called ID Cabal?
I've yet to see an answer. Can you give me one? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It was looking a bit light for a 5x increase in text in 5 days to qualify. Ive added a bit ... can you do some? Hook will have to be changed I think as there is an older one mentioned in a blog Victuallers ( talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you add this to the ANI page - its not loading for me atm: "Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)"~Thanks Foz. Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for the addition to the Stanford Super Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.3.184 ( talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't done a request for arbitration before and wasn't sure if the template was automatically generated to include the detail posted in (rather than blanking it). Apologies for the damage. I'll redo the request, hopefully properly.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
is this how? i received your message. you should be pleased to note i replaced all of the references that had been deleted and regarded all parts of that page. further, i have referenced everything added, and must point out that a neutral point of view does not equal a positive only. to be neutral means to state facts - which is all that has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlucy ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy your day at Wikipedia. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This was well-needed. I'm not sure it was heeded, but I salute you for trying to cool down a heated situation, and bring people back down to earth. There are too many people who get turned off from Wikipedia precisely because of the heated infighting that occur in situations like these, and I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to calm the fury were not overlooked. Have a great day!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fozz could you explain what you mean here. BigDunc Talk 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help with the Gilpen situation, I figured it would probably be best deleted. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think I've given you the wrong end of the stick -- we're still looking at the form these proposals should take -- we won't start voting for a while yet! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie, may I draw your attention to what I beleive is a an abusive attack on Domer48. His has had his ability to talk on his own page removed for spurious reasons; he has had a punitive block on the outrageous charge of "template abuse". So, yet another Irish editor who is seeking to remove British pov from Ireland-related articles is being silenced? Is this how Wiki generates "consensus"? Block all the dissenting voices? Sarah777 ( talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting spurious unblocks? Back that up please. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Must I ask again? Requesting spurious unblocks? Could you tell me why my page was blocked? My first request was rejected because of "throwing wild accusations" as was my second. So without been given the oppertunity to illustrate my concerns, it was rejected. So my "wild accusations" were not even presented, and they were rejected. My third request was rejected because I did not request to be unblocked, I was asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. So having to clarify what I was looking for, I placed another request, and got blocked. Now please explain how I was requesting spurious unblocks? Alison, please explain were was the "unblock abuse?" -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I was not abusing the unblock request. So why was I blocked? I was making a genuine attempt per our blocking policy and it was rejected. Why was it rejected? It appears to me that you have a judge who makes a determination without hearing the evidence? So admins are no clairvoyant in that they are able to divine my intensions, and describe my concerns as “wild accusations?” Since Tznkai seems to think there is more to this whole issue, and in my attempt to raise it resulted in my being blocked, I would like Fozz to explain Why the bloody blue blazes was my page locked after my fourth request? I want Fozz to explain why he considers my requests to be spurious? Now here is my unblock requests, were they handled correctly? -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Looks like you'll have your handsfull for a bit, by grab me by whatever communication method strikes your fancy when you get a chance.--
Tznkai (
talk)
02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Unidentified man in green firing turret ( talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)