| Revision as of 12:22, 23 November 2010 editCaptain Occam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,011 edits →You're being discussed at AE…: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 23 November 2010 edit undoWeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,316 edits →You're being discussed at AE…: I think Mathsci's comment was strictly praise of you, Ludwigs2Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart. | Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart. | ||
| I’ve also referred there to the circumstances under which you first got involved in the race and intelligence article, based on what I can remember about it. I don’t ''think'' I’ve misremembered this—I looked at your contributions from 2009 to make sure—but you can correct me if I have. --] (]) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | I’ve also referred there to the circumstances under which you first got involved in the race and intelligence article, based on what I can remember about it. I don’t ''think'' I’ve misremembered this—I looked at your contributions from 2009 to make sure—but you can correct me if I have. --] (]) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : Hi, Ludwigs2, I read Mathsci's suggestion to you, at the cited request for enforcement, to visit the request for enforcement about ] entirely as a friendly suggestion. I read what Mathsci wrote as saying that he appreciated your contribution to the discussion at ] as very helpful and as a sign that you have something helpful to contribute to the discussion at the ]. If I am making a correct inference from my life experience among my real-world neighbors and relatives and co-workers, what is happening here is an acknowledgement on Mathsci's part of one of your good deeds in the presence of the editing community, and an expression that bygones can be bygones and he can commend your participation to other editors in the future. Perhaps some editors in the referenced place can learn from the examples of the more experienced editors, which is certainly something I would be glad to do. -- ] (], ]) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 23 November 2010
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
You're being discussed at AE…
here.
Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart.
I’ve also referred there to the circumstances under which you first got involved in the race and intelligence article, based on what I can remember about it. I don’t think I’ve misremembered this—I looked at your contributions from 2009 to make sure—but you can correct me if I have. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Ludwigs2, I read Mathsci's suggestion to you, at the cited request for enforcement, to visit the request for enforcement about Collect entirely as a friendly suggestion. I read what Mathsci wrote as saying that he appreciated your contribution to the discussion at Communist terrorism as very helpful and as a sign that you have something helpful to contribute to the discussion at the the Collect enforcement case. If I am making a correct inference from my life experience among my real-world neighbors and relatives and co-workers, what is happening here is an acknowledgement on Mathsci's part of one of your good deeds in the presence of the editing community, and an expression that bygones can be bygones and he can commend your participation to other editors in the future. Perhaps some editors in the referenced place can learn from the examples of the more experienced editors, which is certainly something I would be glad to do. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)