| Revision as of 12:30, 30 September 2012 editPy0alb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users833 edits →Good Faith← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 30 September 2012 edit undoPy0alb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users833 edits →Good FaithNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| Quite to the contrary, no-one has explained anything. No-one has bothered to engage at all. No one has been able (or bothered) to explain what criterion the picture fails. In fact, the only comment on the discussion was a vote to keep. Admins' inability to stick to wikipedia policy of consensus, good faith, and cilivity is frankly alarming. Resorting to personal threats instead of engaging in a discussion of the actual subject at hand, as YOU have started to do, is utterly reprehensible. May I politely suggest that unless you actually have something to say about the discussion at hand, you step back from this discussion, thank you ] (]) 12:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | Quite to the contrary, no-one has explained anything. No-one has bothered to engage at all. No one has been able (or bothered) to explain what criterion the picture fails. In fact, the only comment on the discussion was a vote to keep. Admins' inability to stick to wikipedia policy of consensus, good faith, and cilivity is frankly alarming. Resorting to personal threats instead of engaging in a discussion of the actual subject at hand, as YOU have started to do, is utterly reprehensible. May I politely suggest that unless you actually have something to say about the discussion at hand, you step back from this discussion, thank you ] (]) 12:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Yes, but if I point out that the initial rationale is faulty and he is then unable to come up with a coherent or meaningful response, then that is no longer a satisfactory explanation, and that doesn't give him the option of just overriding policy. As I've explained alrady on numerous occasions, no one at any point has been able to come up with a decent reason why the picture does not qualify under fair usage guidelines. | |||
| Basically, he should have either come up with a better argument or admitted defeat. Simply sidestepping the discussion and going ahead and deleting anyway is a direct violation of ] ] (]) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 30 September 2012
--Jay Wont dart (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
 Archives |
1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Toca Rivera
Sorry just that if you listen to Jason Mraz's "Love is a four letter word" CD Disc 2 "I Never Knew You " at 2:00, Jason asked us to create a Toca Rivara wikipedia page. LOL.
You may wish to add the redirect link to Jason Mraz but us fans really want to show JM we did try to create a Toca Rivera wikipedia page (and made up some s***) as he mentioned. hahahahahaha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy sing (talk • contribs)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Amon Amarth
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A detail you've missed
I note that you removed your mention of an ongoing edit war, as you mistook the times, and there in fact was no war any-more (there shouldn't have been one in the first place, but well...). You seem to have missed this though.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not going to withdraw that. Exasperation at an edit war on the talk page is not the same as asking for administrator intervention. GimliDotNet 05:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- ... whatever.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Please review the page's edit history before leaving warnings. The edits are fake and unconstructive, plus the user's been reported continuously. Have a good look and get back to me. --Imtitanium (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey GimliDotNet. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Good Faith
You're correct: assuming good faith is a key wikipedia policy. Its a shame that the editor who overrode WP:consensus deleted my change ignored this tenet by assuming I was making this change maliciously or flippantly and without good cause, when this is clearly not the case.
Are you suggesting that the admin involved was actually ignorant as to wikipedia policy? To assume bad faith would be to assume that he knew about it but decided that his opinion superceded policy. To assume good faith would be to assume ignorance. Neither are really acceptable in an admin, if we're honest.
If people disagree with a change they should TALK about it. Not just decide they alone have the right to ignore policy and play fast and loose with other people's edits. Py0alb (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary, no-one has explained anything. No-one has bothered to engage at all. No one has been able (or bothered) to explain what criterion the picture fails. In fact, the only comment on the discussion was a vote to keep. Admins' inability to stick to wikipedia policy of consensus, good faith, and cilivity is frankly alarming. Resorting to personal threats instead of engaging in a discussion of the actual subject at hand, as YOU have started to do, is utterly reprehensible. May I politely suggest that unless you actually have something to say about the discussion at hand, you step back from this discussion, thank you Py0alb (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but if I point out that the initial rationale is faulty and he is then unable to come up with a coherent or meaningful response, then that is no longer a satisfactory explanation, and that doesn't give him the option of just overriding policy. As I've explained alrady on numerous occasions, no one at any point has been able to come up with a decent reason why the picture does not qualify under fair usage guidelines.
Basically, he should have either come up with a better argument or admitted defeat. Simply sidestepping the discussion and going ahead and deleting anyway is a direct violation of wp:consensus Py0alb (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)