| Revision as of 17:06, 28 January 2010 editMalcolmMcDonald (talk | contribs)1,214 edits Improvements at Global Warming← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:12, 30 January 2010 edit undoShock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)15,524 edits Unsolicited adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Some editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage . "Reads like an advertisement" is on there. Please consider adding your name to that section and any other parts you think important. ] (]) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | Some editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage . "Reads like an advertisement" is on there. Please consider adding your name to that section and any other parts you think important. ] (]) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Unsolicited advice== | |||
| 1. LHvU screwed up. 2. His pride won't allow him to admit it. 3. The current policy on wheel warring gives a first-mover advantage. 4. Block logs are almost never expunged, except in cases of severe misconduct by the admin. A simple bad block isn't enough. 5. Lots of people have been blocked. A single bad block is not a huge deal, though I'm sure it must be frustrating. 6. In short, you're screwed. Continuing to raise the issue will only irritate people. Therefore your most advantageous course from here is simply to move on. | |||
| Consider or ignore this unsolicited advice as you see fit. ] (]) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:12, 30 January 2010
LHVU has blundered grotesquely over this. Please don't think his behaviour is typical of the project, and do please come back. At the moment he is still in the "oh dear I f*ck*d up but you're blocked anyway stage" - hopefully he'll have the courage to come back and actually apologise William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Improvements at Global Warming
I believe you feel that the GW article (and perhaps that entire suite of articles) reads something like an advertisement.
I have a concern that there is one way to keep these articles the same and many ways to make improvements. This results in a) division of effort and b) large numbers of editors abandoning the effort.
Some editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. "Reads like an advertisement" is on there. Please consider adding your name to that section and any other parts you think important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsolicited advice
1. LHvU screwed up. 2. His pride won't allow him to admit it. 3. The current policy on wheel warring gives a first-mover advantage. 4. Block logs are almost never expunged, except in cases of severe misconduct by the admin. A simple bad block isn't enough. 5. Lots of people have been blocked. A single bad block is not a huge deal, though I'm sure it must be frustrating. 6. In short, you're screwed. Continuing to raise the issue will only irritate people. Therefore your most advantageous course from here is simply to move on.
Consider or ignore this unsolicited advice as you see fit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)