| Revision as of 03:58, 2 March 2008 editとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →Well?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:03, 2 March 2008 edit undoProtious (talk | contribs)443 edits →Coptic flag: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| As an I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | As an I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Coptic flag == | |||
| Please take a look at ] and add your opinion. I would really appreciate it.--] (]) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:03, 2 March 2008
userpage • contributions • edit info • This editor is an elephant administrator | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg){kind=small}
Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made: If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements. TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Misplaced Pages. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) A personal thank you
expanding Muslim military history task forceI have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Well?As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Coptic flagPlease take a look at this page and add your opinion. I would really appreciate it.--George (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | ||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Commons-logo.svg){kind=link}