| Revision as of 07:58, 16 February 2008 editDoczilla (talk | contribs)Administrators49,049 edits roaring out my thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:30, 16 February 2008 edit undoMackan79 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,363 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
| |}</div> | |}</div> | ||
| |}</div> | |}</div> | ||
| ==Evidence== | |||
| I understand that. The point I raised is that WordBomb had already at that point agreed not to post further, while it does not appear that you warned him. This is why I questioned the indefinite block, and assuming that he was operating in bad faith based on his reaction. ] (]) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:30, 16 February 2008
| Please leave messages about ongoing content issues that I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article, guideline, or policy in question, to avoid repetition and in case others want to join in the discussion. Many thanks. |
 | |||
|
|
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
Request for discussion
Hi SlimVirgin, I wanted to discuss an OTRS courtesy deletion you made in the middle of last year of an ArbCom case, and how it reflects down to events of today. Would you prefer to discuss this publicly, or privately (and no, I promise it has nothing to do with the current discussion regarding MM et all). Thanks for any attention you can give me on this. SirFozzie (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "last year of an ArbCom case"? I knew that some cases take too long to resolve, but geez...... :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So I'm horrible at grammar. Shush :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Brad, it appears quite the opposite, that the case was so quick that many editors did not even know it had happened. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is "Way Back When" in Misplaced Pages terms. Furthermore, the deponeth sayeth not. Email sent, SlimVirgin. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Brad, it appears quite the opposite, that the case was so quick that many editors did not even know it had happened. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So I'm horrible at grammar. Shush :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
| Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |  |
Doczilla's RfA
.:
Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.
| Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!"
Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. |
 Thank you for casting the 80th vote in support. |
reverse.jpg){kind=link}
"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler
| Doczilla RAWR! 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |  |
 |
 |
 |
Evidence
I understand that. The point I raised is that WordBomb had already at that point agreed not to post further, while it does not appear that you warned him. This is why I questioned the indefinite block, and assuming that he was operating in bad faith based on his reaction. Mackan79 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)