| Revision as of 13:13, 11 October 2007 editJemmy Button (talk | contribs)673 editsm even friendlier← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:09, 17 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I undid your edit because of ]. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] (])</span> 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that's OK, I just did that to get a high quality version to link to from my user page. But, you know, the punctuation is now inconsistent within that section. If you are going to revert my changes, you should also go through the whole section and change all the punctuation so it's the same way everywhere. (Consistency of style is a lot more important than the particular style.) —]<sub>]]</sub> 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi! I saw your comments on Coren's talk page, and I looked at part of ]. I think that when there's a problem such as you describe at Coren's talk page, that it helps to get more editors involved and having the page on their watchlist so they can revert edits which go against the consensus of other editors. So I tried to participate; but I couldn't find the statement by you about what you're trying to change in the article. (After finding it, of course I'll use my own judgement as to whether I agree with you or not.) I have two suggestions: first, that you make your case clearly and prominently on the article talk page, and somehow make it easy to find (e.g. by posting fewer comments about the behaviour of admins and other editors, so that your post about article content stands out; and perhaps by posting comments with pointers back to your earlier comment); and secondly, that you give me a link to where you've made your case. (Including both what the material is that you would like to change, and the reasons why.) Thanks. By the way, in my opinion there's no use trying to persuade administrators to participate on the grounds that they should because they're administrators. It doesn't work that way. What you need, I think, is more editors; and administrators can choose to edit an article or not, just like anybody else, and are at least as busy as anybody else and there are many articles to choose from. Content policies are enforced by editors, not especially by administrators. Administrators will help by protecting a page etc. when needed, but may not have time to participate in discussion and editing. <span style="color:Green; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>](]) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The entire talk page, more or less, is devoted to this issue. Just see the page history and what StephenWolfer is doing. I hope you realize I wasn't asking the administrator to edit any article; I was asking the administrator to do what I cannot: use (or threaten) "force." —]<sub>]]</sub> 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk: Capitalism == | |||
| Hello--I request that you stop deleting material, because it appears to me that you are doing so with a heavy hand. Barring ] violations or some such, we should definitely err on the side of leaving things in discussion pages. | |||
| However, it looks like we might not be able to come to agreement. If you aren't willing to stop deleting such material permanently, then how about stopping temporarily while we get administrator input? | |||
| Thanks ](]/]) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Like I said, I was just going to delete it once and give up, because I don't care. The things that I deleted the last time were different things than I deleted the first time. Did you see what I deleted this time? I don't think there is any room for controversy with regard to that material -- note that the warning template says off-topic discussion will be deleted. But I certainly don't care enough to draw this out at all. The whole point of deleting material is to save time, not to waste it. —]<sub>]]</sub> 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks--I'll try to get the material back and restore your comments again. ](]/]) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 21:09, 17 April 2022
Talk to me baby! —Jemmy
Theodore Kaczynski
I undid your edit because of WP:PUNC. Sorry. Gary King (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's OK, I just did that to get a high quality version to link to from my user page. But, you know, the punctuation is now inconsistent within that section. If you are going to revert my changes, you should also go through the whole section and change all the punctuation so it's the same way everywhere. (Consistency of style is a lot more important than the particular style.) —Jemmytc 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Property is Theft!
Hi! I saw your comments on Coren's talk page, and I looked at part of Talk:Property is theft!. I think that when there's a problem such as you describe at Coren's talk page, that it helps to get more editors involved and having the page on their watchlist so they can revert edits which go against the consensus of other editors. So I tried to participate; but I couldn't find the statement by you about what you're trying to change in the article. (After finding it, of course I'll use my own judgement as to whether I agree with you or not.) I have two suggestions: first, that you make your case clearly and prominently on the article talk page, and somehow make it easy to find (e.g. by posting fewer comments about the behaviour of admins and other editors, so that your post about article content stands out; and perhaps by posting comments with pointers back to your earlier comment); and secondly, that you give me a link to where you've made your case. (Including both what the material is that you would like to change, and the reasons why.) Thanks. By the way, in my opinion there's no use trying to persuade administrators to participate on the grounds that they should because they're administrators. It doesn't work that way. What you need, I think, is more editors; and administrators can choose to edit an article or not, just like anybody else, and are at least as busy as anybody else and there are many articles to choose from. Content policies are enforced by editors, not especially by administrators. Administrators will help by protecting a page etc. when needed, but may not have time to participate in discussion and editing. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The entire talk page, more or less, is devoted to this issue. Just see the page history and what StephenWolfer is doing. I hope you realize I wasn't asking the administrator to edit any article; I was asking the administrator to do what I cannot: use (or threaten) "force." —Jemmytc 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk: Capitalism
Hello--I request that you stop deleting material, because it appears to me that you are doing so with a heavy hand. Barring WP:BLP violations or some such, we should definitely err on the side of leaving things in discussion pages.
However, it looks like we might not be able to come to agreement. If you aren't willing to stop deleting such material permanently, then how about stopping temporarily while we get administrator input?
Thanks CRETOG8(t/c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, I was just going to delete it once and give up, because I don't care. The things that I deleted the last time were different things than I deleted the first time. Did you see what I deleted this time? I don't think there is any room for controversy with regard to that material -- note that the warning template says off-topic discussion will be deleted. But I certainly don't care enough to draw this out at all. The whole point of deleting material is to save time, not to waste it. —Jemmytc 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks--I'll try to get the material back and restore your comments again. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)