| Revision as of 18:06, 19 May 2015 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Kudos...: Long established practice← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:13, 9 June 2015 edit undoFreshacconci (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers49,702 edits →Fair enough: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| : It's my long established practice. In my view the Gamergate fuss bears certain parallels to the "global warming hoax" nonsense that immediately followed the theft of emails from CRU in East Anglia. So you will not be surprised to hear that I first consciously exercised this disengagement strategy after a brief period of intensive involvement at the article on that topic. Others who failed to disengage didn't have a very happy time, irrespective of their stance on the issues. --] 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC) | : It's my long established practice. In my view the Gamergate fuss bears certain parallels to the "global warming hoax" nonsense that immediately followed the theft of emails from CRU in East Anglia. So you will not be surprised to hear that I first consciously exercised this disengagement strategy after a brief period of intensive involvement at the article on that topic. Others who failed to disengage didn't have a very happy time, irrespective of their stance on the issues. --] 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Fair enough == | |||
| Wasn't intended as an attack but point taken. ]] 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:13, 9 June 2015
My mind's gone completely blank and I cant think what to put in this header.
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For all your work cutting down the size of the Gamergate controversy article and resolving talk page disputes. Bosstopher (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
How very thoughtful! --TS 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hatting/unhatting
This is just a notification that the hatting you recently did is here. Not interested in debating it here, not seeking any sanctions against you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- No offence taken. You're doing the right thing by taking it to the enforcement page. Cheers. --TS 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As requested
Reminding me how much I miss the writings Iain Banks. Since you asked for a templating.
In all seriousness keep up the good work, you're very much appreciated. — Strongjam (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll bear that in mind next time I am tempted by the siren call of the Great Enfolded. --TS 00:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated!
Thanks for tagging me! I was actually just wondering if I should add the template to my own page to indicate good-faith awareness of the contentious circumstances on and sanctions covering the gamergate mess, but I was genuinely not entirely sure if it would "count", or if the template has to be administrator-applied, or something similar. Sappow (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think self-tagging would have counted, because it's only to establish that the editor is aware of the circumstances that apply to their edits in a certain area.
- I tagged one editor whose activities looked suspicious but then noticed that there were a few others who looked new to me (I only recently stopped editing in that topic) so I ended up tagging a few newcomers. --TS 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Kudos...
Hi Tony Sidaway, Apologies for the interruption. I thought that this I deliberately stepped back a few months ago to give new editors a chance
here was worthy of recognition. I think it's the kind of attitude that Misplaced Pages could use more of; on all sides of all disputes. - Ryk72 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's my long established practice. In my view the Gamergate fuss bears certain parallels to the "global warming hoax" nonsense that immediately followed the theft of emails from CRU in East Anglia. So you will not be surprised to hear that I first consciously exercised this disengagement strategy after a brief period of intensive involvement at the article on that topic. Others who failed to disengage didn't have a very happy time, irrespective of their stance on the issues. --TS 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough
Wasn't intended as an attack but point taken. freshacconci talk to me 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)