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. |
Hi, Avruch! I'm going to remove the LRGH link again from Laconia, New Hampshire. It's a hospital, or clinic, and having a link on the city's page is simply advertising. Furthermore, the Laconia Motorcycle Week belongs on Laconia Motorcycle Week (where it already is), the Laconia & Weirs Beach Online is an advertising site, and the Lake Winnipesaukee Historical Society belongs on Lake Winnipesaukee, where it already is. All of these are types of links that are discouraged by WP:EL. If you disagree, let me know here? Or on the talk page of the article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say, and I have little patience of the-sky-is-falling-ism myself. The sky is most emphatically not falling here. My frustration stems especially with the fact that nobody in a position to do so (including quite specifically Jimbo) will explain i. what his authority is, and ii. where it comes from. While my complaint might at first glance appear to be partially alleviated by what he wrote - he is, after all, partially explaining his view of i. - I find it very irritating that somebody who will not explain the source of his authority (beyond to say that it's "historical") will wander in to a contentious Arb Comm election procedure just to remind all concerned that he won't hesitate to ignore the whole thing (well, mostly) if he doesn't think the community has chosen wisely. In the same way that I object to the faction of Wikipedians who delight in poking perceived "cabalists" in the eyeball, I don't much care for Jimmy's finger in our communal eye. Also irritating is his characterization of his role as that of a constitutional monarch combined with his claims to the power of what amounts to an absolute monarch. Anyway, I do regret if I came across as predicting the dead walking the earth and such-like, but I wanted to explain myself. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
[1] I assume you know there is already an article about Edward Nottingham? Risker ( talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As we've previously discussed, I've put your name forward for a referee panel WP:Arbitration enforcement#Further Proposals-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
...my computer buzzes... loudly. I'm not pulling your leg or anything. It has never happened before. I clicked on and off your userpage three times.. always the same thing. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Avruch! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to freeze the discussion in the sense that no one can reply, I froze it because jc37, Jennavencia, and myself were essentially (from WP:AN):
We are beginning to recirculate our own reasoning. And if we cannot recognize each other's logic, then therefore the discussion will only transgress into a mess of quotations. In a way, this is for the benefit of the neutral user, which has to read two and a half pages of direct discussion, and several others for reference.
Nevertheless, thank you for your comment. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Posting this here because apparently the discussion is "frozen" elsewhere according to comments on AN and CaC's page. I'm not sure why its frozen, but just in case it gets removed there I'll repost it here as its directed at you anyway).
jc37 - maybe this is a stupid question, but do you tihnk the outcome would have been different if the closure had been managed in the way you would prefer? Numerically represented it would have looked identical, is that right, because there was a limit to the number of votes and there is no way to count non-vote comments? So the discussion element would have entered into the final analysis primarily if it conflicted strongly with the numerical outcome. Did that happen, in your view, and you think the close should be other than what it was? If not, is it fair to say that your criticism is more to do with process than with substance? I understand (as I think does Jennavecia and ChyranandChloe) that process is not unimportant - on the other hand, it does seem unnecessarily disruptive to go back and rework the process now after it has already been completed - particularly if the outcome would ultimately be the same. Avruch T 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - great work! Barrus' non-Nasdijj works are extremely obscure so I've asked Mary to come back with verifiable commentary on them as all I can find is extremely uncomplimentary (apart from her own blog, which isn't a proper source). I'll let you know if anything comes of that. Vizjim ( talk) 07:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This edit refers to me personally which is a direct violation of Wikipedia's admonition to comment on content and not contributors. Please take up any issues you believe I have editing with the appropriate noticeboards and refrain from referring to me personally on article talk pages or in edit summaries. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BLAG Linux and GNU, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/blag-linux-and-gnu.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I should be able to get something going this weekend. Wizardman 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Nathan/Archive 7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you think I've done anything wrong... I want you to know I completely agree with you. Slap me if needed. I'm supposed to be the solemn, level-headed kid. That IRC kid is not me. — Ceran( dream / discover) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
We deeply appreciate you contribution on our concern. I am raising some rejoinders. Thanks. [2]-- Lux Lord ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I applaud you removing the derogatory comments in the ANI thread. Unfortunately the commons admins rejected deleting the pictures in question (see User_talk:Rootology#Images_of_Florentino_Floro). Pcap ping 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was directed here by User:TenPoundHammer. I was trying to find someone who wouldn't mind archiving my usertalk pages for me because I'm not very astute on that sort of thing and it would take me forever to figure it out. Thank you very much in advance, especially if you can do that for me. Thanks. Atlantabravz ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a million for the archiving. I really appreciate it. Atlantabravz ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
We-ell, I could have told her to take a hike as I saved typing out 'cheers' or 'regards' or whatever 000's of times, but i thought about it and wonmdered what folks thought. If they truly thought it was annoying I would have ditched it, so I posted a poll. I am sure most looked at it and were libertarian in their views on whether I did it or not...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[3] – RyanCross ( talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm addressing the issues on WJBscribe's talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking at the SSP case you submitted, and we would much appreciate it if you provided diffs supporting your case. It would make the process much faster and much easier for the investigators. Thanks! ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. -- Tznkai ( talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, yes.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert Eric Wone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hood talk 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Avruch,
Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You removed my comment from Jimbo's talkpage. This is not technically against the rules, but it is generally considered very rude. Please do not remove others' comments. Thank you. 173.66.190.81 ( talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please examine the article again and see if your BLP concerns have been met by yesterday's expansions? I'd really like to close that thread out and move the notability discussion into the AfD, but User:NurseryRhyme disagrees, so a third party view would be helpful. Jclemens ( talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is seriously arguing that Joe was never a plumber. He obviously did plumbing work. What's at issue are the details around that, and his personal views on taxes since they were a part of McCain's creation on the campaign trail.
We've gotten to this point because Collect worked as hard as possible to eliminate qualifiers that were present in the media and part of the story.
To keep these facts out, he's used shifting arguments that change with the winds He also goes with great frequency to the BLP noticeboard to argue debates he's lost on the talk page.
Basically most other editors, myself included, just want to show the multiple facets of Joe the Plumber that are readily gleaned from the papers. Collect on the other hand seems to be fighting the last election still. Mattnad ( talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd tell you. Scarian Call me Pat! 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been adding and readding the correct date of death November 4th to the article and added "Please Read the Article First" to keep people from putting Nov 5.
It was not meant to be permanent just meant to educate whoever kept changing it before I went to add the correct date. Which I did afterward. No harm no foul. And like I said, I also added sources to prove the correct date.
(Timestamp sig Avruch T 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
Why did you nominate it? It does as little use as a userspace. If it gets deleted, delete userspaces. Chubb enna itor 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is not only because I felt like it deserved the ArbCom's attention, it was to head off a more explosive war... there were those prepared to delete it under BLPSE (which is.. to put it lightly.. a sore spot at the moment), and others said they'd block any BLPSE action. So rather then have all that happen, with all the unpleasantness, let's get ArbCom eyes on it and see what they want to say on it. I'm going to be cleaning up the main article Laura Didio at some point.. the problem with a encyclopedia that techies contribute heavily to, the people the techies hate get rather hit hard. (and I'm a techie who reads Groklaw, so that's something ;)) SirFozzie ( talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Avruch. You're a clerk now, huh? Yes yes, I know the rule about posting in one's own section only. But that doesn't mean anybody is obliged to remove a one-word post. It's merely something you can do if you want to... spread the wikilove, I guess. Hope you enjoyed it. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
I tend to agree with your comment here. I guess I'd take it one step further, though. I agree that "the simple fact is that people are upset with [FT2] for a variety of reasons." To me, that's actually the heart of the matter. At some point the question ceases to be whether those reasons are fair or unfair. It becomes a matter of whether someone can be an effective Arbitrator when they manifestly lack the confidence of large segments of the community. If a large number of people vocally lacked confidence in my judgement, well, I could probably continue to retain adminship, but I don't think I could continue to be an effective admin. I've seen a few admins go the Blagojevich route - clinging to their legal authority despite having lost its moral underpinnings - and it's not a pretty sight. I guess I wish there were a face-saving way out of such a situation for FT2, but this community usually isn't happy with anything short of tar and feathers. MastCell Talk 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu - I realize that you're an administrator and a mediator, that you are as cognizant as anyone is likely to be of the purpose of a talkpage and what contributes constructively to a discussion. Given that, I hate to lecture - but perhaps everyone occasionally needs a reminder of a few things. I understand you've got a history with Tiamut (indeed, I've read a fair amount of it on various pages), and that this colors your interactions and influences your interpretation of her (his?) comments.
On the other hand, this particular page is fairly high profile at the moment, and the discussions are evolving at a pretty rapid pace. It makes it very difficult to discuss and achieve a rough consensus on all the many areas of dispute if folks are commenting about other editors, about the subject in general, or otherwise focusing on conflicts or problems not pertinent to that article. I've been trying to nudge people, on their talkpages and at the article talk, into focusing solely on content specific issues. Do you think you could give me a hand, and hopefully keep this article and its discussion orderly until its no longer a current event?
(Incidentally, have you ever met Susan Silverman-Abramowitz? A rabbi in Silver Springs I used to know).
Avruch T 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
with the first six words of this edit. Thanks! Un sch ool 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Some person named Squeakbox had sent me a nasty, patronizing remark, and I was annoyed. JiggleJog ( talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avruch, Do you recall the actual wording? "Essex Court" could be a reference to an address which refers to a specific barrister's chambers. At least, that is how I interpret this [5]. Use "Essex Court" in your Edit/Find. Hag2 ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :)-- Hag2 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any recourse for edits of this nature? How does one deal with this? Should someone with this POV actually be editing I-P articles at all? I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks [6] Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The picture you wanted deleted, has been deleted.-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have made a couple [8] [9]. Please comment based on fact not your perception of it. I like you Avruch and I believe we have only ever had positive interaction, but I don't appreciate people turning up on "my" (not mine but....) talk making claims that are demonstrably false - as opposed to any statements I have made that are very much not demonstrably false. Pedro : Chat 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Avruch, You seem to be highly respected, at least by editors I highly respect (namely Nishidani), so I would like to ask if you see a problem with my user page. As its contents have apparently inspired one to label me a terrorist, I would value another opinion as to whether the page should be changed. Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 19:03, 24 January 2009 (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. |
Hi, Avruch! I'm going to remove the LRGH link again from Laconia, New Hampshire. It's a hospital, or clinic, and having a link on the city's page is simply advertising. Furthermore, the Laconia Motorcycle Week belongs on Laconia Motorcycle Week (where it already is), the Laconia & Weirs Beach Online is an advertising site, and the Lake Winnipesaukee Historical Society belongs on Lake Winnipesaukee, where it already is. All of these are types of links that are discouraged by WP:EL. If you disagree, let me know here? Or on the talk page of the article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say, and I have little patience of the-sky-is-falling-ism myself. The sky is most emphatically not falling here. My frustration stems especially with the fact that nobody in a position to do so (including quite specifically Jimbo) will explain i. what his authority is, and ii. where it comes from. While my complaint might at first glance appear to be partially alleviated by what he wrote - he is, after all, partially explaining his view of i. - I find it very irritating that somebody who will not explain the source of his authority (beyond to say that it's "historical") will wander in to a contentious Arb Comm election procedure just to remind all concerned that he won't hesitate to ignore the whole thing (well, mostly) if he doesn't think the community has chosen wisely. In the same way that I object to the faction of Wikipedians who delight in poking perceived "cabalists" in the eyeball, I don't much care for Jimmy's finger in our communal eye. Also irritating is his characterization of his role as that of a constitutional monarch combined with his claims to the power of what amounts to an absolute monarch. Anyway, I do regret if I came across as predicting the dead walking the earth and such-like, but I wanted to explain myself. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
[1] I assume you know there is already an article about Edward Nottingham? Risker ( talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As we've previously discussed, I've put your name forward for a referee panel WP:Arbitration enforcement#Further Proposals-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
...my computer buzzes... loudly. I'm not pulling your leg or anything. It has never happened before. I clicked on and off your userpage three times.. always the same thing. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Avruch! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to freeze the discussion in the sense that no one can reply, I froze it because jc37, Jennavencia, and myself were essentially (from WP:AN):
We are beginning to recirculate our own reasoning. And if we cannot recognize each other's logic, then therefore the discussion will only transgress into a mess of quotations. In a way, this is for the benefit of the neutral user, which has to read two and a half pages of direct discussion, and several others for reference.
Nevertheless, thank you for your comment. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Posting this here because apparently the discussion is "frozen" elsewhere according to comments on AN and CaC's page. I'm not sure why its frozen, but just in case it gets removed there I'll repost it here as its directed at you anyway).
jc37 - maybe this is a stupid question, but do you tihnk the outcome would have been different if the closure had been managed in the way you would prefer? Numerically represented it would have looked identical, is that right, because there was a limit to the number of votes and there is no way to count non-vote comments? So the discussion element would have entered into the final analysis primarily if it conflicted strongly with the numerical outcome. Did that happen, in your view, and you think the close should be other than what it was? If not, is it fair to say that your criticism is more to do with process than with substance? I understand (as I think does Jennavecia and ChyranandChloe) that process is not unimportant - on the other hand, it does seem unnecessarily disruptive to go back and rework the process now after it has already been completed - particularly if the outcome would ultimately be the same. Avruch T 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - great work! Barrus' non-Nasdijj works are extremely obscure so I've asked Mary to come back with verifiable commentary on them as all I can find is extremely uncomplimentary (apart from her own blog, which isn't a proper source). I'll let you know if anything comes of that. Vizjim ( talk) 07:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This edit refers to me personally which is a direct violation of Wikipedia's admonition to comment on content and not contributors. Please take up any issues you believe I have editing with the appropriate noticeboards and refrain from referring to me personally on article talk pages or in edit summaries. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BLAG Linux and GNU, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/blag-linux-and-gnu.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I should be able to get something going this weekend. Wizardman 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Nathan/Archive 7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you think I've done anything wrong... I want you to know I completely agree with you. Slap me if needed. I'm supposed to be the solemn, level-headed kid. That IRC kid is not me. — Ceran( dream / discover) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
We deeply appreciate you contribution on our concern. I am raising some rejoinders. Thanks. [2]-- Lux Lord ( talk) 07:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I applaud you removing the derogatory comments in the ANI thread. Unfortunately the commons admins rejected deleting the pictures in question (see User_talk:Rootology#Images_of_Florentino_Floro). Pcap ping 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was directed here by User:TenPoundHammer. I was trying to find someone who wouldn't mind archiving my usertalk pages for me because I'm not very astute on that sort of thing and it would take me forever to figure it out. Thank you very much in advance, especially if you can do that for me. Thanks. Atlantabravz ( talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a million for the archiving. I really appreciate it. Atlantabravz ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
We-ell, I could have told her to take a hike as I saved typing out 'cheers' or 'regards' or whatever 000's of times, but i thought about it and wonmdered what folks thought. If they truly thought it was annoying I would have ditched it, so I posted a poll. I am sure most looked at it and were libertarian in their views on whether I did it or not...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[3] – RyanCross ( talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm addressing the issues on WJBscribe's talk page.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking at the SSP case you submitted, and we would much appreciate it if you provided diffs supporting your case. It would make the process much faster and much easier for the investigators. Thanks! ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. -- Tznkai ( talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, yes.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert Eric Wone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hood talk 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Avruch,
Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You removed my comment from Jimbo's talkpage. This is not technically against the rules, but it is generally considered very rude. Please do not remove others' comments. Thank you. 173.66.190.81 ( talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please examine the article again and see if your BLP concerns have been met by yesterday's expansions? I'd really like to close that thread out and move the notability discussion into the AfD, but User:NurseryRhyme disagrees, so a third party view would be helpful. Jclemens ( talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is seriously arguing that Joe was never a plumber. He obviously did plumbing work. What's at issue are the details around that, and his personal views on taxes since they were a part of McCain's creation on the campaign trail.
We've gotten to this point because Collect worked as hard as possible to eliminate qualifiers that were present in the media and part of the story.
To keep these facts out, he's used shifting arguments that change with the winds He also goes with great frequency to the BLP noticeboard to argue debates he's lost on the talk page.
Basically most other editors, myself included, just want to show the multiple facets of Joe the Plumber that are readily gleaned from the papers. Collect on the other hand seems to be fighting the last election still. Mattnad ( talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd tell you. Scarian Call me Pat! 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been adding and readding the correct date of death November 4th to the article and added "Please Read the Article First" to keep people from putting Nov 5.
It was not meant to be permanent just meant to educate whoever kept changing it before I went to add the correct date. Which I did afterward. No harm no foul. And like I said, I also added sources to prove the correct date.
(Timestamp sig Avruch T 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
Why did you nominate it? It does as little use as a userspace. If it gets deleted, delete userspaces. Chubb enna itor 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is not only because I felt like it deserved the ArbCom's attention, it was to head off a more explosive war... there were those prepared to delete it under BLPSE (which is.. to put it lightly.. a sore spot at the moment), and others said they'd block any BLPSE action. So rather then have all that happen, with all the unpleasantness, let's get ArbCom eyes on it and see what they want to say on it. I'm going to be cleaning up the main article Laura Didio at some point.. the problem with a encyclopedia that techies contribute heavily to, the people the techies hate get rather hit hard. (and I'm a techie who reads Groklaw, so that's something ;)) SirFozzie ( talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Avruch. You're a clerk now, huh? Yes yes, I know the rule about posting in one's own section only. But that doesn't mean anybody is obliged to remove a one-word post. It's merely something you can do if you want to... spread the wikilove, I guess. Hope you enjoyed it. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
I tend to agree with your comment here. I guess I'd take it one step further, though. I agree that "the simple fact is that people are upset with [FT2] for a variety of reasons." To me, that's actually the heart of the matter. At some point the question ceases to be whether those reasons are fair or unfair. It becomes a matter of whether someone can be an effective Arbitrator when they manifestly lack the confidence of large segments of the community. If a large number of people vocally lacked confidence in my judgement, well, I could probably continue to retain adminship, but I don't think I could continue to be an effective admin. I've seen a few admins go the Blagojevich route - clinging to their legal authority despite having lost its moral underpinnings - and it's not a pretty sight. I guess I wish there were a face-saving way out of such a situation for FT2, but this community usually isn't happy with anything short of tar and feathers. MastCell Talk 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu - I realize that you're an administrator and a mediator, that you are as cognizant as anyone is likely to be of the purpose of a talkpage and what contributes constructively to a discussion. Given that, I hate to lecture - but perhaps everyone occasionally needs a reminder of a few things. I understand you've got a history with Tiamut (indeed, I've read a fair amount of it on various pages), and that this colors your interactions and influences your interpretation of her (his?) comments.
On the other hand, this particular page is fairly high profile at the moment, and the discussions are evolving at a pretty rapid pace. It makes it very difficult to discuss and achieve a rough consensus on all the many areas of dispute if folks are commenting about other editors, about the subject in general, or otherwise focusing on conflicts or problems not pertinent to that article. I've been trying to nudge people, on their talkpages and at the article talk, into focusing solely on content specific issues. Do you think you could give me a hand, and hopefully keep this article and its discussion orderly until its no longer a current event?
(Incidentally, have you ever met Susan Silverman-Abramowitz? A rabbi in Silver Springs I used to know).
Avruch T 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
with the first six words of this edit. Thanks! Un sch ool 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Some person named Squeakbox had sent me a nasty, patronizing remark, and I was annoyed. JiggleJog ( talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avruch, Do you recall the actual wording? "Essex Court" could be a reference to an address which refers to a specific barrister's chambers. At least, that is how I interpret this [5]. Use "Essex Court" in your Edit/Find. Hag2 ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :)-- Hag2 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any recourse for edits of this nature? How does one deal with this? Should someone with this POV actually be editing I-P articles at all? I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks [6] Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The picture you wanted deleted, has been deleted.-- Cerejota ( talk) 10:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have made a couple [8] [9]. Please comment based on fact not your perception of it. I like you Avruch and I believe we have only ever had positive interaction, but I don't appreciate people turning up on "my" (not mine but....) talk making claims that are demonstrably false - as opposed to any statements I have made that are very much not demonstrably false. Pedro : Chat 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Avruch, You seem to be highly respected, at least by editors I highly respect (namely Nishidani), so I would like to ask if you see a problem with my user page. As its contents have apparently inspired one to label me a terrorist, I would value another opinion as to whether the page should be changed. Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 19:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)