| Revision as of 08:16, 23 May 2011 editRadar33 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,065 edits →Close it: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:48, 23 May 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Ajl772/Archives/2011/May.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{User talk:Ajl772/Whispers}} | {{User talk:Ajl772/Whispers}} | ||
| == Question from Phead128 about Senkaku mediation == | |||
| What exactly am I suppose to do if i wish to contribute some "ifnormation" to the mediation committee? where do I add my info or edited my contribution?] (]) 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You may post it in the talk page of the RfM. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did I sufficiently answer your question, or would you like me to elaborate further? – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello again, I would appreciate it if you could post a link to where I can perhaps contribute some information for the mediation committee? I really appreciate it :D Thx u. ] (]) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 03:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Moving conversation to ]'s talk page, as I am watching their page, but I'm not sure they are watching mine. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 05:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Pro-Misplaced Pages POV == | |||
| Please give some thought to my edit . --] (]) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I have responded to your message. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| I saw your action at ]. There is a consensus in favor of the merge. Count the votes. There are more "merge" votes than "don't merge" votes. ] (]) 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Consensus is not based on the number of '''!'''votes, rather, it is based on the merits of the '''!'''votes. Even if it was based on the number of votes, <s>8 "votes" in favor and 5 against</s> 6 "votes" in favor, 5 against, and 1 completely different proposal, is hardly a consensus (<s>61.5%</s> 50.0%, usually 70-75% is suggested). If you feel that strongly about it, please feel free to open a new merge request at ] or open a ]. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| What do you mean by merit? The reasons for the merge were good. ] (]) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't say "don't merge" or that there was consensus to "not merge", I said there was no consensus. There's a big difference. I'm not going to debate with you over it any further; and I'll say this '''yet again''': ''please'' feel free to '''propose a new merge request''' at ] or open a ] — unless you're scared that another merge proposal will fail as well, in which case you're fighting a losing battle anyway. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I fear nothing. It's just that I'm being ignored. ] (]) 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == not vandalism == | |||
| Just a reminder edits like are ]. I'm not arguing against reverting, but I'm arguing it shouldn't be labeled vandalism. ] (]) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologize, I was using Twinkle, and selected the "POV" option. It automatically put that as the edit summary, so it's not entirely my fault. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gotcha. I know you "]", sometimes I use "vandalism" on the twinkle revert and then settle down before welcoming/warning an IP. Same sort of issue. It's all good. ] (]) 23:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm curious, what do you mean by "know better"? I know what it means, I'm just a little confused at your usage of it... – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I meant it as in "you've been around here long enough that it's a jerky move for me to say something, which is why I didn't use a template" and I followed that up by indicating I have trouble using the 'revert vandalism' button on Twinkle too, so you're not alone. ] (]) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. ]<!--template:smiley--> – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{edit conflict}}Ok, I know what I did wrong now... Clicked "rollback (vandal)" instead of "rollback" or "rollback (AGF)"... Now I know for the future. Thanks for pointing that out to me. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's a question for you (if you're still watching): Would you classify edit as vandalism? – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Still here, unless your page gets busy I'll stalk. That could be argued as vandalism or a test. If I was feeling generous, I'd use 'AGF', write in 'test' for the summary, then leave {{tlx|uw-test1}}. Or just a general 'welcome' template. But I doubt many people (admins or others) would give you much hassle unless there was an obvious pattern of marking good-faith edits as vandalism. The edit that prompted me to come here wouldn't be enough to even note; I wouldn't leave it on the page of an editor who has a history of ignoring ] and/or would be offended by me doing so. The only reason I even mentioned it is because it was on a page that has issues with POV editing (on both 'sides'), so it's especially important that the edits and reverts look legit. ] (]) 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, and in regards to that IP edit to the commons page, it's clear if you look at the edit history of the user. My comments are about that one edit in isolation, partly because I didn't click through the IP contribs before replying {{=)}} ] (]) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{edit conflict}} No worries, unless someone is wearing my patience thin with contentious editing (or editing that could be perceived by others as contentious), I generally AGF (unless it's a blatant personal attack/vandalism, and in that case I'll just report it; see the history of my user page). | |||
| ::::And don't worry about it being too long, I try to read everything so I can better grasp what the other person is trying to say (or at least what I think they want me to understand from what they said, if that made sense). – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, more text usually makes the context and intent clear. It's all good- we need more solid editors around here, thanks for your work. ] (]) 23:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Gah... We keep edit conflicting!!! ]<!--template:smiley--> | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the compliment as well, I think it's one of the first times I've gotten one (that I can remember). ]<!--template:smiley--> – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Best Approach == | == Best Approach == | ||
Revision as of 12:48, 23 May 2011
|
|
If you came to my talk page:
|
 | This talk page may be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly (within 48 hours) is appreciated. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Whisperback notices
Best Approach
Resolved
I'll leave it to you to determine the best approach here, Prioryman has reverted me but as he's the main advocate of not merging and also the primary contributor to the 'threatened' article, I suppose your call is most neutral. If we call a halt to merge discussions for the time being I think it best to alert B-Machine of this, as he clearly feels entitled to begin the discussions again as it stands. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
strike that, you've answered my question on my talk. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Close it
Please close the discussion at Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian crisis. After reading the comment made by Primecoordinator, I think Second Ivorian Civil War should be merged into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Done – AJL 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, this is absurd. How many more misconceived and time-wasting merge proposals are you going to allow B-Machine to inflict? Have you seen his comment here? His attitude is just plain juvenile. Prioryman (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- This will be the last one. – AJL 08:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, this is absurd. How many more misconceived and time-wasting merge proposals are you going to allow B-Machine to inflict? Have you seen his comment here? His attitude is just plain juvenile. Prioryman (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)