| Revision as of 22:07, 2 June 2010 edit72.192.46.9 (talk) →Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:30, 6 October 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB |
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' |
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | With gratitude, for helping me file an RfC after my long and fruitless wrestle with the bot. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | With gratitude, for helping me file an RfC after my long and fruitless wrestle with the bot. ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
== Clerking actions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for adding the motion to the Arbcom template. We shouldn't have missed that one but help is always gratefully accepted. Cheers ] (]) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks kindly! I personally read it Cla68's statement to have a meaning similar 'he may be editing that article because he thinks it's associated with Derek Smart and his history has shown a propensity toward wanting negative things to be associated with Derek Smart' as opposed to 'He has a negative view toward diploma mills, and therefore inputs negative information about diploma mills', my original thinking was that my interpretation made sense since the request for further blocking extended to only that one article, but I only wanted to mention why I was thinking in those terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it's very similar in interpretation anyway, I just noticed that in a prior interaction I came off more short than I intended with someone else. I wanted to let you know I wasn't intending to belittle or deride your point of view, and I honestly am thankful for your research assistance! With regards to your side note, I believe single purpose editors are likely to get further scrutiny, but are not unwelcome outright. They must be uninterested in a neutral point of view (advancing an agenda rather than creating an encyclopedia) to get blocked. This is based off a wikilink reading from when you typed single purpose account though, and not on a well-versed knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules. ] (]) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
