User talk:SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:41, 16 March 2008 editAnticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers10,383 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:43, 17 March 2008 edit undoCla68 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Responding to dispute resolution: new sectionNext edit →
Line 61:		Line 61:
	==Arbitration==		==Arbitration==
	In view of ]'s disappointing responses and continued unwarranted personal attacks and baseless speculation about you, I am taking this matter to the arbitration committee. . --] 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)		In view of ]'s disappointing responses and continued unwarranted personal attacks and baseless speculation about you, I am taking this matter to the arbitration committee. . --] 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

			== Responding to dispute resolution ==

			As part of dispute resolution, one of the steps that's required is to engage the other editor in question on his/her talk page. So, that's what I'm doing here. The dispute this time has started in a discussion thread on DanT's talk page: . As described in that thread, what has happened with Mackan79 and has happened with me previously is that when we've tried to engage you in discussion about conduct on your part that we object to, our posts here are usually deleted or archived quickly (with no link here to the archive), often by you or Crum375, not responded to by you, and then another editor often comes and "warns" us not to "harrass" you. I don't think this kind of behavior on your part is helpful and ask that you don't do it anymore. Thanks, ] (]) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:43, 17 March 2008

War on Bad Writing
1. There is no such word as "incivil." You can be uncivil, and you can be accused of incivility, but you cannot be incivil.
2. There is definitely no such word as "definately."

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks.

File:Animalibrí.gif [REDACTED]

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Thank-you

Hi SlimVirgin! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).

I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being

an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.

Seraphim♥ 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

In view of User:Mackan79's disappointing responses and continued unwarranted personal attacks and baseless speculation about you, I am taking this matter to the arbitration committee. . --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to dispute resolution

As part of dispute resolution, one of the steps that's required is to engage the other editor in question on his/her talk page. So, that's what I'm doing here. The dispute this time has started in a discussion thread on DanT's talk page: . As described in that thread, what has happened with Mackan79 and has happened with me previously is that when we've tried to engage you in discussion about conduct on your part that we object to, our posts here are usually deleted or archived quickly (with no link here to the archive), often by you or Crum375, not responded to by you, and then another editor often comes and "warns" us not to "harrass" you. I don't think this kind of behavior on your part is helpful and ask that you don't do it anymore. Thanks, Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)