| Revision as of 08:10, 20 March 2022 view sourceGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,868 edits manually archive (#14)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:14, 20 March 2022 view source Celestina007 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,029 edits →Your RFA oppose: ApologiesTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| It is one thing to have your own idiosyncratic rules for how you vote on RFAs, and it is another to bait editors who say stupid things in response to your vote. Please don't make comments such as {{tq|I'll be happy to respond as soon as you post a legitimate reason for supporting the nomination. PS, I'll be the judge if your response is legitimate or not.}} on RFAs, even in response to people who don't have legitimate reasons to support the RFA. ] (powera, ], ]) 19:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC) | It is one thing to have your own idiosyncratic rules for how you vote on RFAs, and it is another to bait editors who say stupid things in response to your vote. Please don't make comments such as {{tq|I'll be happy to respond as soon as you post a legitimate reason for supporting the nomination. PS, I'll be the judge if your response is legitimate or not.}} on RFAs, even in response to people who don't have legitimate reasons to support the RFA. ] (powera, ], ]) 19:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :There was nothing about my reply to his questioning my oppose !vote that was inappropriate. I'll be happy to listen to your advice when you question some of the less than adequate support !votes. Until then, you are free to have whatever opinion you want, but I'm not all that interested in hearing it. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC) | :There was nothing about my reply to his questioning my oppose !vote that was inappropriate. I'll be happy to listen to your advice when you question some of the less than adequate support !votes. Until then, you are free to have whatever opinion you want, but I'm not all that interested in hearing it. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
| **To be honest, I really feel bad and I was out of line to have called your criteria obtuse nor user antagonist words like “laughable” I violated my own oath to myself which is not to (speak) when i am upset. Myself & {{u|Ritchie333}} always butt heads but nonetheless they have always defended me whenever I was in trouble, we have a great deal of respect for each other, so when they mentioned that your criteria has remained the same over years, I paused for a minute and thought things over. I apologize for my rude comments, please do accept my apology. Even if I didn’t understand your criteria I could have engaged you in a more productive manner. If you choose to not to reply I perfectly understand & if you choose not to accept my apology I understand also, just know that I am indeed truly sorry for being rude to you. ''']''' (]) 16:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:14, 20 March 2022
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
| Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive |  |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. | |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
2022 thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in January! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
- Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Your RFA oppose
It is one thing to have your own idiosyncratic rules for how you vote on RFAs, and it is another to bait editors who say stupid things in response to your vote. Please don't make comments such as I'll be happy to respond as soon as you post a legitimate reason for supporting the nomination. PS, I'll be the judge if your response is legitimate or not.
on RFAs, even in response to people who don't have legitimate reasons to support the RFA. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- There was nothing about my reply to his questioning my oppose !vote that was inappropriate. I'll be happy to listen to your advice when you question some of the less than adequate support !votes. Until then, you are free to have whatever opinion you want, but I'm not all that interested in hearing it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, I really feel bad and I was out of line to have called your criteria obtuse nor user antagonist words like “laughable” I violated my own oath to myself which is not to (speak) when i am upset. Myself & Ritchie333 always butt heads but nonetheless they have always defended me whenever I was in trouble, we have a great deal of respect for each other, so when they mentioned that your criteria has remained the same over years, I paused for a minute and thought things over. I apologize for my rude comments, please do accept my apology. Even if I didn’t understand your criteria I could have engaged you in a more productive manner. If you choose to not to reply I perfectly understand & if you choose not to accept my apology I understand also, just know that I am indeed truly sorry for being rude to you. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)