→RfA: new section |
|||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching_Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie&diff=219587929&oldid=219586325] - Again, my apologies for my lack of work on this - by no means a slight to MFC - just a failure to review my watchlist properly! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching_Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie&diff=219587929&oldid=219586325] - Again, my apologies for my lack of work on this - by no means a slight to MFC - just a failure to review my watchlist properly! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:No problem at all. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
:No problem at all. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== RfA == |
|||
(Posted to [[User talk:Majorly]] and [[User talk:Wisdom89]] - if you want to reply in a central location, my talk page is open.) |
|||
Both of you need to shut up and think about the damage your bickering is doing to candidates. If you disagree with someone's RfA philosophy, take it to their talk page to try and convince them otherwise, or take it to WT:RFA to convince the 'crats that the comment should be considered without merit. |
|||
Think about the damage both of you are doing to candidates. ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' <sub>([[user talk:giggy|:O]])</sub> 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:41, 16 June 2008
Welcome to Majorly's talk page.
MAJORLY
Guidelines |
I have ended all participation with Wikipedia, so will not be replying to any further messages left here. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread, using a descriptive header. Is your comment missing? It's probably in my archives. I will normally answer on this page. Please note that the talkback template is officially banned on this page! :) So don't use it here; I watch your talk if I've left you a note. Thanks! |
Archives |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 |
Hi
User_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide#You're_awesome
Al Tally, please read my response, I do not understand you're prior comment within that section regarding me. I hope after reading what I said, and assuming that I am an honest wikipeidan when I state such things, you will not gag at my contributions anymore. Beam 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also posted similar sentiments to Keeper, and Wisdom89 who could, like you, be seen seemingly belittling me and my sentiment towards DHMO. I assure you that I do believe you guys just think I'm over reacting or acting in some self interest, which would account for "gag" replies. But I have faith that after I explained myself you might not. Thanks for reading and sorry for taking up your time with such trivial shit.
- PS - What's up with the user redirect? Why not just a new name? If I'm being intrusive regarding that you don't have to answer, and feel free to respond about all of this (if you do have a response) on my talk page, or on DHMO's page, in that section.Beam 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also posted similar sentiments to Keeper, and Wisdom89 who could, like you, be seen seemingly belittling me and my sentiment towards DHMO. I assure you that I do believe you guys just think I'm over reacting or acting in some self interest, which would account for "gag" replies. But I have faith that after I explained myself you might not. Thanks for reading and sorry for taking up your time with such trivial shit.
Reminder Sunday Lunchtime
Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10. You said you might be able to make it. Hopefully we'll see you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your comment at Ali'i's rfa
Replying here since it isn't particulary relevant to the rfa. I'm just curious why you'd want to get rid of inactive admins with one process, yet create more at another. And I mean inactive in the sense that they're admittedly not going to use the tools. Is there any particular significance on whether someone edits articles or not in determining whether the tools simply existing are doing any harm or not? Or am I just missing something? - Bobet 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Admins that don't edit... at all... should have their flag removed. Admins that edit but don't use tools are still a net benefit. Al Tally talk 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood from your previous comment that you feel that way, but you haven't answered my question (ie. why, and how?). - Bobet 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- If the admin is still editing, there is a chance they'd still use the tools at some point. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not make thousands of logs deleting stuff like a bot. Whilst the user is editing the encyclopedia, they may see at some point they need to use admin tools occasionally. The user in question is not refusing to use admin tools; just that they have no particular place they would "work". The place people should "work" is the encyclopedia, and maintaining that.
- So in answer to your question, they are a net benefit because with every edit or log they make, they improve the encyclopedia in some way. I don't care if they make a million logs, or zero in their tenure - the point is, if they need to use them, they can without bothering anyone else. Al Tally talk 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood from your previous comment that you feel that way, but you haven't answered my question (ie. why, and how?). - Bobet 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Majorly
I think this little tiff needs to be stifled. We obviously do not agree on what constitutes a good or bad oppose argument. Not everyone is going to agree and I'm ok with that, however, is it really fair to the candidate to see a sidetracked RfA? Let's just be civil about this. If you don't like my oppose argument, drop me a note on my talk page to discuss it. If you do not wish to do so, I'm going to ask that you cease mentioning my name at RfA (that's frustrating, and I think you know beforehand that it's a form of goading) and making sweeping comments about the opposition. I think it's better off if we both refrain from WP:SARCASM. Is that cool? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
MFC and admin "coaching"
[1] - Again, my apologies for my lack of work on this - by no means a slight to MFC - just a failure to review my watchlist properly! Pedro : Chat 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
RfA
(Posted to User talk:Majorly and User talk:Wisdom89 - if you want to reply in a central location, my talk page is open.)
Both of you need to shut up and think about the damage your bickering is doing to candidates. If you disagree with someone's RfA philosophy, take it to their talk page to try and convince them otherwise, or take it to WT:RFA to convince the 'crats that the comment should be considered without merit.
Think about the damage both of you are doing to candidates. giggy (:O) 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)