| Revision as of 18:45, 24 December 2008 editFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →Your warning: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:49, 24 December 2008 edit undoKelly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,890 edits happy holidaysNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| :I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. I notice that you didn't warn Tom for warring the same issue. '''And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog.''' ] (]) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC) | :I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. I notice that you didn't warn Tom for warring the same issue. '''And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog.''' ] (]) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Happy holidays == | |||
| In the spirit of the Christmas season, would you accept an olive branch from someone who has disagreed with you in the past? Blessings to you, and best wishes to you and all your loved ones. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:49, 24 December 2008
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 3:22 pm, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives
 Truth?"Well, I see a problem. 10lb is still non-adminned? Well, color me with cliche #1, then. How did this happen?" Because I do stupid things like this, this and this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom Talk page "policy"Hi, I have made a comment at AN, relating to ArbCom practice if not policy. My comment is motivated by what happened during the Thatcher/lar/SV case - I cannot deny that - but I really see this as a matter that can arise in the future and we need an abstract principle for handling it. I do not want discussion of my comment to get bogged down in the past. I think ArbCom needs some kind of clear (transparent) principle to guide it in the future. Could you comment? Say wahtever you think - just please push the conversation in the direction the future, not the past. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) OogCompletely off topic entirely social hello, how are you?--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
CabalaAbout the 18th century lit cabal silliness - I will finally have time, so I will be putting forth my short passage reading project, dealing with 18th century lit and the rest, on Wikiversity. It will mostly have a passage, some questions, and a discussion area. I will put a few things to choose from and take requests, so it can be an ongoing project. I'm only telling youthis now because you kinda expressed interesting, heh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah PalinSo pleased to see your name on the Mediation list. Unless you feel very positive about it, I would prefer that you just point me in the direction of a good mediator, seeing as you edited on Palin yourself. I don't personally believe that someone can be biased and not show it, therefore AGF precludes Conflict of Interest, but many people obviously put great stock in it. If it jogs your memory, I was the one who put the chart about the number of everyone's edits on the talk page, proving Ferrylodge's accusation against you that you were doing BRRR to be in fact the opposite, that he broken WP:3RR about 3 times over, that day. Anyways, I didn't know about 3RR back then, or I would probably have just said that, since the chart was soon deleted anyway. Ferrylodge has gone off to edit Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Collect shows up once in a while, but Fcreid and LedRush, Tom, and Kelly are my real problem now. They do the same thing over and over, revert, assert. My refuting their assertions, pointing out that their assertions aren't backed with evidence, my reasons for inclusion or deletion, all of that goes unanswered, or answered with more unbacked assertions, ad nauseum subjective claims like WEIGHT, etc. Revert, assert. Even if you won't take the case or don't know someone who will, even if you've read all that was just deleted from the article already, you should look at the discussion page. Pretty sure that is an exclusive: the Alaska Supreme Court case that proves and illuminates the Palin Church and State AP story. Good talking at you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing the puppy Feliz Navidad ;)
Thank you, thank you, thank youI see that you removed some material from the Sarah Palin talk page. Thank you. Single purpose accounts are still very active over there and they tag team to no end. Is it me?? Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your warning
Happy holidaysIn the spirit of the Christmas season, would you accept an olive branch from someone who has disagreed with you in the past? Blessings to you, and best wishes to you and all your loved ones. Kelly 18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||||||||
