| Revision as of 23:20, 23 August 2008 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,986 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Prom3th3an/Archives2008/August. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:15, 24 August 2008 edit undoPromethean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,237 edits Manualy archiving eyesore messagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| :I dont think your any more appalling then some of the candidates ive seen, At the time you were about a 4.5 on the candidate scale (0 = Appualing, 10 = Excellent). I would have opposed for the in-experiance (and i did) but im ashamed to admit the the atheist userbox did come to mind and closed the deal, which was somewhat un-professional of me. That given if you run again I would probably support now. However im not willing nominate you (not that you've asked), I have a reputation at this time that could be contagious and would hate to lower your chances of you success. ] ] 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :I dont think your any more appalling then some of the candidates ive seen, At the time you were about a 4.5 on the candidate scale (0 = Appualing, 10 = Excellent). I would have opposed for the in-experiance (and i did) but im ashamed to admit the the atheist userbox did come to mind and closed the deal, which was somewhat un-professional of me. That given if you run again I would probably support now. However im not willing nominate you (not that you've asked), I have a reputation at this time that could be contagious and would hate to lower your chances of you success. ] ] 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks; it wasn't un-professional at all; the concerns raised were valid. Ironically the only possible unprofessionalism would be the same logic as the oppose from the other side. I was opposed since showing my atheistic beliefs would make any edits to do with religious material suspect regardless of my intentions; in contrast, the only reason your oppose could be considered un-professional would be if it was driven by ''your'' religious beliefs :P. I know that probably isn't the case, but I find it funny anyway, haha. I'd rather have spontaneous nom's rather than "hey, can you sponsor me?"; a good friend of mine did that'n a while back, and while I feel he is an excellent bloke to be wielding the banhammer I do feel that tainted the proceedings (at least for me) somewhat. In regards to your reputation; massive cock-ups are normally extremely visible on WP, and i've heard nothing, so it can't be ''that'' bad. ]] 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ::Thanks; it wasn't un-professional at all; the concerns raised were valid. Ironically the only possible unprofessionalism would be the same logic as the oppose from the other side. I was opposed since showing my atheistic beliefs would make any edits to do with religious material suspect regardless of my intentions; in contrast, the only reason your oppose could be considered un-professional would be if it was driven by ''your'' religious beliefs :P. I know that probably isn't the case, but I find it funny anyway, haha. I'd rather have spontaneous nom's rather than "hey, can you sponsor me?"; a good friend of mine did that'n a while back, and while I feel he is an excellent bloke to be wielding the banhammer I do feel that tainted the proceedings (at least for me) somewhat. In regards to your reputation; massive cock-ups are normally extremely visible on WP, and i've heard nothing, so it can't be ''that'' bad. ]] 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ??? == | |||
| ''Ok maybe an indef is a little over the top, but a block at least for a month or two. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)'' | |||
| What good will punishment do? Hasn't he been punished enough? —''']''' 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh dear lord, you're either stupid or doing a darn good job of pretending you are. You think he's still doing any of those things? Both admins have desysopped! News flash; he isn't a prolific account hacker, and he sure as hell isn't abusing admin tools now! Yes, please continue: I'd like to see how incapable you are of seeing the bigger picture here. This is the REAL WORLD we're talking about, not the ] you think you're playing. | |||
| :Incidentally, the community is perfectly capable of botching up its own decision making process without Jimbo's intervention. I think the only intelligent think you said in that comment is to leave it to the ArbCom. —''']''' 14:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Your comments on ] == | |||
| Please read and think very carefully about , before my patience for the trouble you're causing expires. --] <small>]</small> 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello Prom3th3an, I noticed you closed the RfA mentioned in the header. I have to say, however, that while it's acceptable for non-bureaucrats to close RfAs like this, I would like to mention that prior to of this RfA, you . Please be aware that it is considered inappropriate to close an RfA you've participated in, with the possible exception of closing a withdrawn RfA, as those don't require independent judgment from the closer. This isn't a ''huge deal'', but please remember in future, if you ever have to close someone's RfA as SNOW again, make sure you haven't participated in the request first. Just think of it as not closing AfDs that you've participated in or created. I will congratulate you for at least telling the candidate why you closed the RfA: that should always be done. Best wishes, and thank you. ] 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:15, 24 August 2008
——————————————— PROM3TH3AN's TALK PAGE ———————————————
_in_flight_Los_Tarrales.jpg)
Cinnamon hummingbird
Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp
DMOZDMOZ links are acceptable, in fact, they are one of the ways of preventing linkfarms in articles. As far as worrying about the article inaccessable to those behind content filters... That's not our concern. –xeno (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Milton cooper was a criminalWhy you defending him, he attempted to murder a sheriff, wether you want to accept the truth or not! Your personal fantasy does not overide the truth. Block me and ill take action and change my IP in about 30 minutes :)--203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Editor ReviewHey, thanks for the review :). In response to the last comment i'm not currently looking to go for an RfA; i've decided to wait until someone else nominates me before doing so. Thanks, on that topic, for the oppose vote in my RfA, and that isn't sarcasm! Looking back I wouldn't have voted support, never mind other editors! So thanks for preventing the sysopping of a truly appalling admin candidate :P. Ironholds 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
|
