Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Do you even ''know'' what a ] is? —] (] • ]) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you even ''know'' what a ] is? —] (] • ]) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
== Professionalism ==
Please restrain your comments on Requests for adminship votes to either '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''. Comment's like '''Fuck yeah''' are childish and unprofessional. Thank you. —] (] • ]) 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your kind vote. I hope that I can live up to the high standards set by others AC members, and help continue Esperanza down it's wonderful path. All the best, Thε Halo11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Me again, sorry... :-(
Sorry Sir Nick, it's me again, and still having the same problem. I didn't find any other administrator who wanted to help me, and I'm growing tired of being treated like garbage by the people at the Greater and Lesser Tunbs page. Only one friendly person turned up on the talk page and defended my work. Look at what happened. Since I started working on that page, they have blindly reverted me nine times. Today I made a big expansion of the article, backed up with lots of sources. () I'm actually quite proud of it, I think nobody can seriously say that isn't an improvement. But it was reverted too, blindly, even with all the factual uncontroversial corrections I'd made on the way. ManiF was clever enough not to do the revert himself this time, he sent somebody else to do it for him. But he endorsed the revert. And of course, nobody even bothers to argue what's wrong about my edits, or what's wrong with my criticism of the earlier version. They just won't accept anything that even hints at the possibility that anything other than the Iranian point of view could be taken seriously.
I even made a little correction about the Persian name, about their own language, and even that was reverted four times until ManiF finally admitted (well, sort of) that I had been right after all.
What can be done? I'm actually quite tired of the idea of having any further discussions with these people or doing "mediation" with them. They have been behaving abominably. Hah, I also found that page somewhere that says newbies shouldn't be bitten. Nice joke. I for one feel bitten for certain.
Oh yes, and I also found what you said about ManiF being on "Arbcom probation". You meant this here, right? Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Egad, what a mess. Now I understand what's been happening. So he can be banned if he edits disruptively? I mean, it's not for me to decide, but if this here isn't disruptive, then what is?
FellFairy22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Harassment
Hi Andy.
Please check your E-mail inbox, I've sent you an e-mail. Also, please take note of the following harassing and condescending remarks by FellFairy. Could you please remind the user, that such comments are borderline personal attacks, and not in line with the wikipedia rule to "Discuss the topic, not the individuals". I love genuine dialogue and debate about the topics dealt with in articles, but I'm not interested in personal petty arguments. I'd appreciate your help and advice. Thanks. Regards --ManiF07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hinduism Project members:
There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
BhaiSaab is still nursing fantasies about seeing socks everywhere. There's been 4 RFCU's, none of which have come out with anything. I call his actions Sock - cruft. BakamanBakatalk23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
RfB With A Smile :)
Username Warning
I find Alkivar's usage of an image in his sig far less disruptive than an admin who brakes WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG by obfuscating their real username behind a "nick" name. This borders on throwing stones. Leave Alkivar alone; there are bigger problems in the 'pedia.
An admin who hides behind a nickname lacks accountability. Please change it soon or request WP:CHU.
Hi. I know you have a right to ask whatever questions you see fit on RFAs, but I don't see what your question about WP:WONK is intended to achieve. Most Wikipedians - even admin candidates - just aren't that deeply involved in Misplaced Pages politics to know of that page or care about its contents. Furthermore, it's a personal essay that has no policy/guideline status. Finally, it should be blatantly obvious that pigeonholing people isn't likely to help the encyclopedia or productivity. If you want opinions on that essay why not just ask on the talk page? --kingboyk13:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ho, hum. That personal essay makes much more sense than many other guidelines and policies. When I show my support or oppose an admin's candidacy – I must be clear about the particular user's thoughts. I am more of a process one, than a policy wonk. I believe that we are all here for making the encyclopedia than indulging in unneeded politics. :) — Nearly Headless Nick09:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your wishes on my birthday, Anirudh! Hope you enjoyed yourself on yours :) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth9106:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please restrain your comments on Requests for adminship votes to either Support or Oppose. Comment's like Fuck yeah are childish and unprofessional. Thank you. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
