Content deleted Content added
Reply |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::They are not making a content decision, and even though I'm not bothering to read it, I can only assume that the worst possible outcome for myself is that I can no longer revert multiple times for a while. As I am not reverting these, there is no need to wait for an irrelevant discussion to be over. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
::They are not making a content decision, and even though I'm not bothering to read it, I can only assume that the worst possible outcome for myself is that I can no longer revert multiple times for a while. As I am not reverting these, there is no need to wait for an irrelevant discussion to be over. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::"...the worst possible outcome..." - I strongly urge you to read and participate in the RfA. It is far from irrelavant. [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::"...the worst possible outcome..." - I strongly urge you to read and participate in the RfA. It is far from irrelavant. [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut|talk]]) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::It's irrelevant to just suggesting a merge after someone reverts my initial redirects. Anyways, it's a pointless endeavor for myself because far too many of the parties there are participating for "non-pure" reasons. If it had only the single motive of doing away with edit warring, I probably would bother with it. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:16, 24 January 2008
Merge
Because some people cannot understand the concept of using a global consensus instead of discussion for the sake of discussing, especially when there are no actual editors here to discuss, I have placed merge tags. If no sources are provided, these will be redirected in a week. I am not going to play any "Not enough people discussed, so there is no consensus" games, so please don't try. I hope I didn't really offend anyone, but because of the fact that the reverting of the redirects was not done out of good faith, it's sort of hard not to be gruff. TTN (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is the rush to do this? I urge you to wait until the results of the ongoing "Episodes and characters" Request for Arbitration has finished. Astronaut (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are not making a content decision, and even though I'm not bothering to read it, I can only assume that the worst possible outcome for myself is that I can no longer revert multiple times for a while. As I am not reverting these, there is no need to wait for an irrelevant discussion to be over. TTN (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- "...the worst possible outcome..." - I strongly urge you to read and participate in the RfA. It is far from irrelavant. Astronaut (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant to just suggesting a merge after someone reverts my initial redirects. Anyways, it's a pointless endeavor for myself because far too many of the parties there are participating for "non-pure" reasons. If it had only the single motive of doing away with edit warring, I probably would bother with it. TTN (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- "...the worst possible outcome..." - I strongly urge you to read and participate in the RfA. It is far from irrelavant. Astronaut (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are not making a content decision, and even though I'm not bothering to read it, I can only assume that the worst possible outcome for myself is that I can no longer revert multiple times for a while. As I am not reverting these, there is no need to wait for an irrelevant discussion to be over. TTN (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)