| Revision as of 21:28, 12 December 2013 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Point-y subsections: better response← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:09, 13 December 2013 edit undoSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Point-y subsections: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :::Given that this is not a primary area of interest for you and you haven't been involved long, I don't think you really understood all the history and all the debates that have been had and need to be had. So your standing seems to more as a person who feels they've been dissed by some editors on a few issues. However, the issues really are clear and I am very confidant of my diffs on a variety of policies since I've been collecting them for months and have them nicely organized. You have 7-8 months of catching up to do on on 20 odd articles, tens of thousands of words and couple of thousand diffs. If you really have a problem with the narrower issues you've gotten upset about, take it to WP:ANI again. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | :::Given that this is not a primary area of interest for you and you haven't been involved long, I don't think you really understood all the history and all the debates that have been had and need to be had. So your standing seems to more as a person who feels they've been dissed by some editors on a few issues. However, the issues really are clear and I am very confidant of my diffs on a variety of policies since I've been collecting them for months and have them nicely organized. You have 7-8 months of catching up to do on on 20 odd articles, tens of thousands of words and couple of thousand diffs. If you really have a problem with the narrower issues you've gotten upset about, take it to WP:ANI again. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If you have the diffs then that is great. At ArbCom you get 500 words for your presentation, only occasionally with some leeway given. But, please, do not suggest things such as that I do not know all the history because that would be another example of broad-brush assumption on your part and you'll likely get roasted. One does not have to participate in order to have knowledge and to use it. You are a whining, drama-laden bully, Carol, let's face it. The saving grace is that you are a whining etc bully among a group of whining etc bullies from various perspectives and thus to a large extent cancel each other out. Want the diffs? - ] (]) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:09, 13 December 2013
 Green Box Links to Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff  I'm busy in the real world and don't get notifications so it may take a few days to get back if you want to contact me about the few abstruse articles I'm watching or may contribute to. Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.' |
|---|
 |
Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilary Rosen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mediate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Point-y subsections
Hi, you've been asked before not to insert point-y subsection headings at various venues - WP:RSN was one that I can still recall. Specifico was similarly requested (not by me). Any chance you can avoid doing this sort of thing, which nearly always seems to serve to draw emphasis to your opening statements? There may indeed sometimes be a need to break up a long section - the so-called "arbitrary break" - but neither of these sections were long at the point where you inserted the subheading. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- When one veers off to another topic, one needs another section. When it starts as a reply to something in a section, I assumed it needs to be a subsection. Does it need to be it's own section? I have no problem with that. But if issues need discussing, they do and dismissing them as pointy is just silly. But please bring these matters up on talk pages where I can find out what others think. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. I can't be arsed arguing. The issue is without doubt going to Arbcom. I'll come out of that ok: your mud simply will not stick because it is flying in the face of my widely-accepted "net positive" behaviour. On the other hand, I doubt very much that you or any of the other regulars - Srich and Bink aside - will come out of it without at least topic bans and probably worse. It is likely to be a tricky holiday period, for those taking holidays, and I'd suggest that you start compiling your diffs now because ArbCom simply will not accept the sort of stuff you have been saying without them. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a primary area of interest for you and you haven't been involved long, I don't think you really understood all the history and all the debates that have been had and need to be had. So your standing seems to more as a person who feels they've been dissed by some editors on a few issues. However, the issues really are clear and I am very confidant of my diffs on a variety of policies since I've been collecting them for months and have them nicely organized. You have 7-8 months of catching up to do on on 20 odd articles, tens of thousands of words and couple of thousand diffs. If you really have a problem with the narrower issues you've gotten upset about, take it to WP:ANI again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you have the diffs then that is great. At ArbCom you get 500 words for your presentation, only occasionally with some leeway given. But, please, do not suggest things such as that I do not know all the history because that would be another example of broad-brush assumption on your part and you'll likely get roasted. One does not have to participate in order to have knowledge and to use it. You are a whining, drama-laden bully, Carol, let's face it. The saving grace is that you are a whining etc bully among a group of whining etc bullies from various perspectives and thus to a large extent cancel each other out. Want the diffs? - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given that this is not a primary area of interest for you and you haven't been involved long, I don't think you really understood all the history and all the debates that have been had and need to be had. So your standing seems to more as a person who feels they've been dissed by some editors on a few issues. However, the issues really are clear and I am very confidant of my diffs on a variety of policies since I've been collecting them for months and have them nicely organized. You have 7-8 months of catching up to do on on 20 odd articles, tens of thousands of words and couple of thousand diffs. If you really have a problem with the narrower issues you've gotten upset about, take it to WP:ANI again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)