| Revision as of 18:50, 1 December 2012 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →RfA move: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:51, 1 December 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →RfA move: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Since you asked, I felt I should explain but do so here where it is more appropriate. The only reason I moved was to keep it from getting overly threaded, and it was likely to. I moved everything except the original vote for the purpose of not diminishing the vote, the only part that the Bureaucrats are really going to take count of. Lately, all admin have gotten to moving longer threads to the talk page, so it was only within that seemingly established consensus that I did so, again, as to not distract from the vote and allow a freer discussion than might be had on the RfA. In other words, to truly keep the primary page neutral while allowing for maximum freedom of expression. You are always free to just come to my talk page and ask why I do any edit or action, I will always explain. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | Since you asked, I felt I should explain but do so here where it is more appropriate. The only reason I moved was to keep it from getting overly threaded, and it was likely to. I moved everything except the original vote for the purpose of not diminishing the vote, the only part that the Bureaucrats are really going to take count of. Lately, all admin have gotten to moving longer threads to the talk page, so it was only within that seemingly established consensus that I did so, again, as to not distract from the vote and allow a freer discussion than might be had on the RfA. In other words, to truly keep the primary page neutral while allowing for maximum freedom of expression. You are always free to just come to my talk page and ask why I do any edit or action, I will always explain. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *One quick note: normally I wouldn't move a single comment, but once it hits 2 or 3 or more, or is obviously going to, then it makes sense to. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:51, 1 December 2012
I believe the 18 January 2012 "blackout" of Misplaced Pages was a completely inappropriate hijacking of this Web site and its information-dispensing mission.
I hope Misplaced Pages will never again hold the work I've done on this site hostage to advance any political point of view.
Greetings
Greetings Townlake. I admire the principled resolve reflected above. I agree with the statements made therein. I came here to comment on your suggestion made on Jimbo's talk page. I agree with your comment's there as well. Do you think an RfC could gain a clear consensus that we prefer Jimbo and his top staff to develop this "RfA fix"? Do you think we should develop an RfC to answer that singular question? I'm intrigued. 76Strat da Broke da (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't think an RFC would be appropriate. Starting an RFC would mean asking the community to admit its own unproductive efforts for reform didn't work, and that RFC would surely fail. An RFC would be confusing, and would detract from that underlying message that this one decision actually shouldn't be made by the community. Townlake (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are undoubtedly correct. I appreciate your efforts and acknowledge that you have given this thoughtful consideration. I am glad you have decided to resume editing, albeit limited. Personally I feel an apology, or acknowledgement of error is due. And the whole blackout is proof that consensus is not appropriate in all manner of governance. Best regards. - 76Strat da Broke da (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A follow up on Bwilkins
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Questions?
Any further updates to this thread will be promptly deleted.
I've removed this thread from my talk page in accordance with WP:TALK: "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted." You can view Gerda's comments in this page's history if you like. I deleted them because I did not believe they served a constructive purpose, and they were not actually intended to answer any questions. Townlake (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Note
This is merely a suggestion from another Wikipedian. But I think at this point, disengaging from User talk:PumpkinSky might not be a bad idea for now.
Should other situations arise in the future, this can always be revisited. - jc37 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your point's well taken. I've left a note saying I'm done there for now. Townlake (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Will you revisit and support me here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
RfA move
Since you asked, I felt I should explain but do so here where it is more appropriate. The only reason I moved was to keep it from getting overly threaded, and it was likely to. I moved everything except the original vote for the purpose of not diminishing the vote, the only part that the Bureaucrats are really going to take count of. Lately, all admin have gotten to moving longer threads to the talk page, so it was only within that seemingly established consensus that I did so, again, as to not distract from the vote and allow a freer discussion than might be had on the RfA. In other words, to truly keep the primary page neutral while allowing for maximum freedom of expression. You are always free to just come to my talk page and ask why I do any edit or action, I will always explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- One quick note: normally I wouldn't move a single comment, but once it hits 2 or 3 or more, or is obviously going to, then it makes sense to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)