| Revision as of 17:33, 23 April 2013 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 14d) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 36.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:33, 29 April 2013 view source Callanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators72,962 edits →Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| Glad to see your are still around and doing what you do. Hope all is well. -] (]) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | Glad to see your are still around and doing what you do. Hope all is well. -] (]) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC == | |||
| A ] has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:33, 29 April 2013
I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.Template:Archive box collapsible
Jerusalem RfC step three comments
Hi Nableezy. About your comments at the Jerusalem RfC discussion - I've noticed that some of your posts have been focused on the conduct of the other editors, rather than on the content issues at hand. Actually, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the way you express some of your comments makes it hard to tell whether they are comments about the content or about user conduct. For example, on one level this comment appears to be taking issue with what should be considered original research. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate subject for a comment. On another level, though, saying things like "silly me", and "thats what again? Oh yeah, its not the same" might be interpreted as sarcasm, and therefore as a judgement of the actions of the editor in question.
As I wrote in the introductory section, I would like participants to keep comments focused on content, and I would prefer that there be no discussion of user conduct on the RfC discussion page. To this end, it would be a great help if you could make an extra effort to strip your comments of anything that might be considered sarcasm, or of anything that might otherwise appear to be commenting on user conduct. Would you be willing to do this? If you have any concerns about user conduct, even small ones, you are welcome to bring them up with me in private (preferably by email), and I will take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ive replaced the comment. Hope thats better, if not let me know. nableezy - 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Conduct
I responded to the RfC at Talk:Rujm el-Hiri. I think you might consider a wiki-break. You seem to have an axe to grind and Misplaced Pages is not the place to do so. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, you learned that in your 329 edits with more than 50% in userspace? Thanks for the advice, really, no sarcasm at all. nableezy - 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
...
Glad to see your are still around and doing what you do. Hope all is well. -asad (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC
A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)