| Revision as of 02:28, 15 September 2007 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →AFA: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:49, 15 September 2007 edit undoJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →AFANext edit → | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| please participate . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | please participate . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :this edit will not help us solve the current dispute. please avoid contentous edits (and esp. edit summaries) until we resolve an issue or two. it would help stop the accusative tone on the talk page. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My edit does not make it harder to solve the current dispute... Also, I don't believe the issue of the category will be not resolved any time soon, as the category dispute has been going on for a long time (look at the archives); therefore, I'm not going to agree with the removal of a valid category just because you think it "will not help us solve the current dispute." —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::you did not understand me, i'm asking you hold off contenteous disputes for a short period so we can resolve the current one without any "background noise", and also that you avoid making refrences as to who reverted what, it matters not for the content dispute and it only makes for people to dig in their post and result in a harder mediation. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to allow Hal Cross to remove parts of the article and not restore it because it will take longer to look through the history. Also, what is this "mediation" you speak of? Your username is not listed at ], there hasn't been any posting at ], and there is a ] that must be followed. I doubt ] will solve anything. I would think a request for third-party comments would be a better route for the lead section issue. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::i'm trying to help you out resolve the revert issue. i'm not the one who opened an AN/I case, i just responded. i will follow the page a bit longer and see if the issue persists. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:49, 15 September 2007
|
Christopher Mann McKay's Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Christopher_Mann_McKay |
I will respond to your comment on my talk page, unless you request otherwise. |
AFA
please participate here. Jaakobou 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- this edit will not help us solve the current dispute. please avoid contentous edits (and esp. edit summaries) until we resolve an issue or two. it would help stop the accusative tone on the talk page. Jaakobou 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- My edit does not make it harder to solve the current dispute... Also, I don't believe the issue of the category will be not resolved any time soon, as the category dispute has been going on for a long time (look at the archives); therefore, I'm not going to agree with the removal of a valid category just because you think it "will not help us solve the current dispute." —Christopher Mann McKay 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- you did not understand me, i'm asking you hold off contenteous disputes for a short period so we can resolve the current one without any "background noise", and also that you avoid making refrences as to who reverted what, it matters not for the content dispute and it only makes for people to dig in their post and result in a harder mediation. Jaakobou 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to allow Hal Cross to remove parts of the article and not restore it because it will take longer to look through the history. Also, what is this "mediation" you speak of? Your username is not listed at WP:M#Active Mediators, there hasn't been any posting at WP:RFM, and there is a process for mediation that must be followed. I doubt this posting will solve anything. I would think a request for third-party comments would be a better route for the lead section issue. —Christopher Mann McKay 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- you did not understand me, i'm asking you hold off contenteous disputes for a short period so we can resolve the current one without any "background noise", and also that you avoid making refrences as to who reverted what, it matters not for the content dispute and it only makes for people to dig in their post and result in a harder mediation. Jaakobou 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- i'm trying to help you out resolve the revert issue. i'm not the one who opened an AN/I case, i just responded. i will follow the page a bit longer and see if the issue persists. Jaakobou 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)