| Revision as of 15:07, 7 May 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Complying with ArbCom expectations← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:04, 13 June 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits courtesy blank page |
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{notice|The talk page comments have been blanked at the request of the participants in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. ]] 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)}} |
|
==Tenmei to ArbCom clerks== |
|
|
The following constructive comment was posted on my talk page: |
|
|
* 21:59, 6 April ] posted |
|
|
|
|
|
I need more time to make my contribution shorter. We have been encouraged to please submit our evidence "within one week, if possible." This suggests that I may reasonably ask for more time. --] (]) 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The rough draft will be cut tomorrow. I plan to finish editing on Friday. --] (]) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] characterises my arguments as , which implies that he/she understands something more than nothing. In the same sentence, ] alleges that no one can understand my arguments, which implies that the label "vexatious" is a hollow complaint. This is a bit puzzling, but I guess I probably get the point ...? --] (]) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Complying with ArbCom expectations== |
|
|
] argues that my serial ArbCom contributions are not constructive and that they are unhelpful -- <s> and</s> . |
|
|
|
|
|
If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation. |
|
|
|
|
|
My strategy is to try to understand the points ] raises and then to address them ''seriatim.'' This is a massive task, given the manner in which "Evidence provided by Teeninvestor" was constructed. In my view, this task is made more difficult because of the way ]'s proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies are laid out. In the context ] contrives, I am guided by ] which I take to mean that the one who is silent is said to agree ('']''). |
|
|
|
|
|
If there is arguable merit in ]'s comments and complaints, I fail to see it at this point; but at least I can take the prudent and timely step of seeking an opinion from someone who understands the process better than I do. --] (]) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Note how no body else, even the very biased Mongol editors who wanted to delete the article, stopped raising the point but you did. Also look at your history of disputes. Learning something Tenmei? I was back from a 5 day wikibreak and your comments are all over the place. Geez.] (]) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
