| Revision as of 22:29, 7 September 2006 editJersey Devil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,830 edits →Striver's RfA: Response← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:35, 7 September 2006 edit undoJersey Devil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,830 editsm →Striver's RfA: Added "to"Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Jersey Devil, I, the nominator, am not happy with your ''hasty'' addition of the RfA to the main page. You could have waited. I may had wanted to discuss the nomination with Striver. Your addition was improper. Striver or I, could do it ourselves. We both know how to do it, don't we? My netural view of you has changed. --] 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | Jersey Devil, I, the nominator, am not happy with your ''hasty'' addition of the RfA to the main page. You could have waited. I may had wanted to discuss the nomination with Striver. Your addition was improper. Striver or I, could do it ourselves. We both know how to do it, don't we? My netural view of you has changed. --] 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :See my above conversation with Petros. There was no policy broken, once Striver accepted the nomination it was perfectly fine to post it on the main page. The outcome would have been exactly the same with a hoard of people voting in opposition to Striver either way. So do not put me on the defensive, if anything it was highly irresponsible take up the time of users whom review RFAs with a user who obviously would never have come close to achiving consensus. Thank you and good day.--] 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | :See my above conversation with Petros. There was no policy broken, once Striver accepted the nomination it was perfectly fine to post it on the main page. The outcome would have been exactly the same with a hoard of people voting in opposition to Striver either way. So do not put me on the defensive, if anything it was highly irresponsible to take up the time of users whom review RFAs with a user who obviously would never have come close to achiving consensus. Thank you and good day.--] 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:35, 7 September 2006
- /Archive 1: May 22, 2005 – March 12, 2006
- /Archive 2: March 12, 2006 - May 8, 2006
- /Archive 3: May 8, 2006 - July 6, 2006
- /Archive 4: July 6, 2006 - September 5, 2006
Pics of puppets!
Hi Jersey, DavidShankBone has uploaded a few pics depicting puppets of South American leaders on their respective pages - Evo Morales was the one that caught my eye. To be honest they are not to my taste. I think they look a bit daft and distract from some of the serious subject matter in the articles, there was one on the Hugo Chavez coup page which was totally out of place! I've spoken to David about this but he insists that they are relevant. Please take a look if you have a moment. Thanks.--Zleitzen 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"unencyclopedic"
Can you define for me how you are using this term so that I can understand where you are coming from, or point me to a definition? --DavidShankBone 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Payne Stewart
Another for your watchlist re Striver: Talk:Payne Stewart --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Striver
Please do not add somebody else's RFA to the main page. It does not look like it has been accepted, in which case there is no need to !vote on it. Petros471 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The candidate did accept the nomination. I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. Please be more careful next time.--Jersey Devil 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, but still should have been added to main page by candidate, or nominator with permission, not by you. Petros471 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is there a specific rule against adding RFAs on the main page in which one is not the nominator or candidate? I just thought the nominator forgot to add it on.--Jersey Devil 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure where it is written (if it is at all), but it's usual practice. It is very common for RFA subpages to be created and worked upon before being formally accepted and transcluded. I suggest that it might have been better to just drop a note on the candidates talk page reminding them that they need to transclude it when they are ready. Petros471 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, if there is no specific written policy on this then I don't see why I should be placed on the defensive here.--Jersey Devil 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't like to see an unessasery pile-on. I realise I didn't read the nomination correctly, and it did look suspicious with someone else adding it. I've found this "Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, any editor (including the nominator or the nominee) can link it to the RfA page. This is done by following the "edit this page" link in the appropriate section below and adding the template provided at the bottom of this page (with the nominee's name substituted for USERNAME) to the RfA page. Ideally, the nominee should do this when they are satisfied with their answers to the questions." in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate, which (in my opinion) could do with a re-wording, I'll suggest it on the talk page. Sorry for 'placing you on the defensive'. Petros471 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Let's just forget about it.--Jersey Devil 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Striver's RfA
Jersey Devil, I, the nominator, am not happy with your hasty addition of the RfA to the main page. You could have waited. I may had wanted to discuss the nomination with Striver. Your addition was improper. Striver or I, could do it ourselves. We both know how to do it, don't we? My netural view of you has changed. --Aminz 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- See my above conversation with Petros. There was no policy broken, once Striver accepted the nomination it was perfectly fine to post it on the main page. The outcome would have been exactly the same with a hoard of people voting in opposition to Striver either way. So do not put me on the defensive, if anything it was highly irresponsible to take up the time of users whom review RFAs with a user who obviously would never have come close to achiving consensus. Thank you and good day.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)