| Revision as of 00:51, 2 November 2007 editRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits archive old← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 2 November 2007 edit undoRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits I thinkl we'll add this even if it is recentNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, ] 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | :Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, ] 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == AZ's Talk Page == | |||
| SqueakBox, please don't continue removing the discussion. The general norm is, as I'm sure you know, that editors may decide when to remove content from their talk pages unless something very objectionable is discovered. My guess is that JzG thought his removal would be uncontroversial, in which case it would be a perfectly justified way to avoid drama. But if some editors really want to have a discussion, it's only courteous to allow it (well, IMO, anyway), absent libel or what not. Thanks. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think Guy was completely right, and I know he won't appreciate what you did. If you keep edit warring like this the page will be in danger of being protected, and the person that would hurt is A.Z., Thanks, ] 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === The Neverending Krystallnacht: A.Z. === | |||
| I noticed you removed this section from the PAW talk page with the comment that it was a thread by a banned user. I checked the block log and didn't see blocks for either Clais41 or Homologeo, and I was wondering if you could clarify who wrote in this section that you believe to be blocked. Thanks. ] 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I referred to Clais as a likely sock, and anyway this material is being removed from wherever it sprouts right now and certainly not just by me. I thought my apologies to Homologeo made it clear I do not consider him the sock of a banned user. Thanks, ] 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::], while I accept your apology for deleting my comment, I cannot believe that you're at it again - please back up assumptions that someone is a banned editor with appropriate evidence. You're well aware of the channels that can corroborate your concerns about an editor's eligibility to editing privileges, and these channels are readily available for you to use. There is currently no justification for deleting ]'s comments from the PAW Talk Page. This individual voiced some legitimate concerns and deserves to be heard. If it is later established that this is a banned user, then you may be justified in removing his or her comments at that point in time. However, you have not yet sufficiently explained why the comment in question should be removed, and thus I will shortly revert your action. Once again, please go through the proper channels to address your concern that this may be a banned editor before removing his or her commentary again. Also, while ArbCom is free to protect individual User Talk Pages from editing and to request that the issues brought up in the section that you deleted be kept off particular User Talk Pages, there is nothing wrong with voicing one's concern over what is happening with editors who edit pedophilia-related articles on the Talk Page of the Wikiproject dedicated specifically to this very same set of articles. Thus, if comments are posted by a legitimate editor with full editing privileges, there is no reason to avoid or remove such commentary. ~ ] 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My advice is to not revert that particular thread. If it were purely a case of suspected banned suer that would be one thing but this is a case that the arbcom have made clear do not want discussing on any of these pages and I believe we need to respect that. Going against the arbcom doesn't do anyone any good in the structure of wikipedia, especially right now (referring to the encyclopedia as a whole right now and not this specific issue, eg Rfc/Jimbo Wales, BADSITES etc) so I ask you not to revert for that reason. | |||
| :I think how we respond to suspected banned users needs to be a theme of the mediation but that your suggestion is not how[REDACTED] deals with banned users with a history of sockpuppets. Thanks, ] 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:53, 2 November 2007
If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser. A new search development in Mozilla Firefox is that we can search the editable html text with search.
 | This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) |
Hi
Hi Richard. I just thought I'd drop by to see what you were up to. Far more active than I am, I can see. Well, I hope things are going well in your life these days. All the best. Guettarda 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)