Revision as of 14:51, 10 August 2005 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Thanks for your support: Good luck Mal.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:43, 11 August 2005 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Archives== | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
Hi, FM. I have nothing useful to add at this time, so this spam would have to do. :) ] 07:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | Hi, FM. I have nothing useful to add at this time, so this spam would have to do. :) ] 07:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:43, 11 August 2005
Hi, FM. I have nothing useful to add at this time, so this spam would have to do. :) El_C 07:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Your comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk
Hi CesarB, just to clarify since there's now some confusion there, did you mean to cast a vote or just post a comment? If you could clarify what you intended there it would help. Thanks either way. FeloniousMonk 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- A comment, of course, I even said so in the edit summary (in fact, it's more of a reply to Sam Spade's vote, and I formatted it in the same way replies are usually formatted on RFA discussions — and on almost all talk page discussions). I see no way anyone can confuse that for a vote. --cesarb 13:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon RfC
Wikipedians often sign both the originator's view or the respondent's view and an outside view. If you agree both with my comments and with FW's summary, I think you may sign both. Robert McClenon 22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, did you notice that one of the signers of the complaint against FuelWagon was Dotsix? Robert McClenon 22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
One last question
I really don't wish to badger you to death over this issue, but I do hope we can put the matter to rest. I remember that you were one of the most vocal opponents of the effort to keep the election endorsements/disendorsements from spinning out of control. While I understand the concerns about open discussion, many people feel the atmosphere that resulted was detrimental in a way that requests for adminship generally are not.
Let's suppose that the format and groundrules for publishing endorsements/disendorsements in the arbitration election had been developed and announced ahead of time, instead of being a hasty response to problems that had not been fully anticipated. Would you consider this a more acceptable solution? --Michael Snow 05:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Michael, no problem, I understand the concern and the need for settling this matter now. I fully agree that the endorsements/disendorsements section of the last election was "out of control" and hence detrimental. I've always felt that this was directly due to the absence of rules and format. Any effort there, like that you mention, is bound to be an improvement I feel. Also, I'd suggest that early on interested parties in the community need to come together when drafting the ground rules and decide on an effective method for dealing with blatant personal attacks (as opposed to legitimately voiced concerns using the public record) in the endorsements/disendorsements section. I feel that with both of these things in place, effective ground rules and format, you can structure a solution that addresses the often conflicting demands for open discussion of candidates and civil discourse. That would get us back on track to the ideal solution, an election by the community. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I'm willing to consider our past disagreement settled. Having not observed much of your other work, I'm not sure that I'm prepared to support your adminship nomination, but I won't be opposing at any rate. Whether you become an admin or not this time around, I hope you'll continue your valuable contributions. --Michael Snow 17:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
FYI
I voted on your RFA as Neutral for the reasons I stated. I hope you understand. Since I know we've gotten into conflict in the past over SS, I thought this ] might intrest you. Even if my tone isn't as sharp, the words are much harsher, atleast thats the way I read them.--Tznkai 16:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Baby pix
Oh, baby...those are my kinds of pictures. She's a beaut! My 6.9 is still in the "beater" stage, but I'll definitely get some pictures back out your way. Body, engine, tranny and most of the interior are nice. The paint is so-so and the replacement seat upholstery is shot. For 99 bucks and not much more than some deferred maintenance it really came back to life. The rear hydropneumatic suspension spheres are on my short list since mine are blown, which locks the struts. Easy fix once I scrape some dough together for some parts. Thanks for sharing!! - Lucky 6.9 05:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
RFA
Thanks a lot for your support vote. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion 08:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- You get a mop? I was told to bring my toothbrush. Best of luck. You'll do fine, I know. FeloniousMonk 14:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)