| Revision as of 06:37, 15 November 2005 view sourceTitoxd (talk | contribs)43,130 editsm →Table: fix linl← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:49, 15 November 2005 view source CBDunkerson (talk | contribs)Administrators15,424 edits →Andy: spNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| Umm... the link to ] is up there, so you're fine on that... ;) Hey, thanks, don't worry about it. I'm going to have to put the bear in the ] so he scares the vandals inside... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | Umm... the link to ] is up there, so you're fine on that... ;) Hey, thanks, don't worry about it. I'm going to have to put the bear in the ] so he scares the vandals inside... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Andy == | |||
| Hi, I wanted to talk to you because I'm concerned about the way the Pigsonthewing arbitration is going. I stepped in to the Coleshill, Merry Widow, and Birmingham pages to see if he was really so impossible to work with. The originally stated issue(s) on all of them are now resolved. I'm no great mediator... indeed, I can show you a few thousand Usenet posts that make me out as a hothead. So how was this impossible task achieved? | |||
| Coleshill: | |||
| It is, by definition, impossible for one person to reach a consensus. So who was the other person who deserved credit for ironing out wording which everyone could live with? Wouldn't you be insulted in someone threw it in your face after you unbent a little to reach a compromise? To turn your question to him there around... why couldn't someone else have done what I did? | |||
| The 'SS' thing. Did no one think to look at the edit history? Anonymous IP address with no significant overlap with PotW that I can see. Everyone just assumes without checking that he put it there under his own username and is subsequently lying about it? Or that this is a sockpuppet of his? He's been berated and belittled over this repeatedly, it is now evidence against him, and yet to all appearances he's the wronged party. | |||
| 'Pigs' : You know he hates being called that because he has said so repeatedly. Do you think needling him will make things better? Isn't it clear that he is not participating because he feels insulted by this procedure and thinks it biased? | |||
| Andy Mabbet is intractable, irascible, terse to the point of inscrutability, and generally a pain in the ass. He doesn't suffer fools gladly and anyone who disagrees with him is a fool. He also usually happens to be right... or at the least has a valid basis for his position. He has made thousands of edits which improved[REDACTED] without challenge or comment. Even his controversies are often beneficial in the long run. Take a look at the Merry Widow article before he put the tag on and after it came off for good and tell me it WASN'T vastly improved. | |||
| Is the goal to find a way to work with a sometimes difficult editor or just to get rid of them despite their numerous uncontested contributions and the good they sometimes do even when being annoying? --] 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:49, 15 November 2005
| Please put your messages below |
New Hampshire articles
Do you think possibly in each Title or Chapters of the RSAs could have a link over to Wikisource to the actutal laws themselves? Since Wikisource is more suited to Primary Source documents.
Also, I wanted to let you know that I have already created a page for the New Hampshire Constitution. Maybe you would like to take the pertinant info from the page you created New Hampshire State Constitution, and put it on the New Hampshire Constitution page, then redirect the one you created to New Hampshire Constitution? I dont know which one has the better title name, I only put it the way I did because the one I created had more information on it.
Its nice to be aquainted with another Granite Stater who attended a school in the University System of New Hampshire. I look forward to working with you. Assawyer 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do not have a preference either way, but I believe the official name to be New Hampshire Constitution. I'll send off an e-mail to the NH Secretary of State to see what the "offfical word" is. The references on the state's page are kind of amiguous. I have not had the pleasure of dealing in Wiki law, but then again I don't get blow away by consensus-type law; while it is interesting, I much prefer that of the Common Law and Civil Law legal traditions. I tried looking for your arbatration case, but was unable to find a reference on the pages. I hope things go well for you, let me know how they turn out. Assawyer 06:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Table
Umm... the link to Misplaced Pages:Barnstars on Misplaced Pages is up there, so you're fine on that... ;) Hey, thanks, don't worry about it. I'm going to have to put the bear in the Loony Barn so he scares the vandals inside... Titoxd 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Andy
Hi, I wanted to talk to you because I'm concerned about the way the Pigsonthewing arbitration is going. I stepped in to the Coleshill, Merry Widow, and Birmingham pages to see if he was really so impossible to work with. The originally stated issue(s) on all of them are now resolved. I'm no great mediator... indeed, I can show you a few thousand Usenet posts that make me out as a hothead. So how was this impossible task achieved?
Coleshill: It is, by definition, impossible for one person to reach a consensus. So who was the other person who deserved credit for ironing out wording which everyone could live with? Wouldn't you be insulted in someone threw it in your face after you unbent a little to reach a compromise? To turn your question to him there around... why couldn't someone else have done what I did?
The 'SS' thing. Did no one think to look at the edit history? Anonymous IP address with no significant overlap with PotW that I can see. Everyone just assumes without checking that he put it there under his own username and is subsequently lying about it? Or that this is a sockpuppet of his? He's been berated and belittled over this repeatedly, it is now evidence against him, and yet to all appearances he's the wronged party.
'Pigs' : You know he hates being called that because he has said so repeatedly. Do you think needling him will make things better? Isn't it clear that he is not participating because he feels insulted by this procedure and thinks it biased?
Andy Mabbet is intractable, irascible, terse to the point of inscrutability, and generally a pain in the ass. He doesn't suffer fools gladly and anyone who disagrees with him is a fool. He also usually happens to be right... or at the least has a valid basis for his position. He has made thousands of edits which improved[REDACTED] without challenge or comment. Even his controversies are often beneficial in the long run. Take a look at the Merry Widow article before he put the tag on and after it came off for good and tell me it WASN'T vastly improved.
Is the goal to find a way to work with a sometimes difficult editor or just to get rid of them despite their numerous uncontested contributions and the good they sometimes do even when being annoying? --CBDunkerson 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)