| Revision as of 12:16, 2 June 2009 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,191 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: +← Previous edit |
Revision as of 13:12, 2 June 2009 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: comNext edit → |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the ]. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--] (]) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the ]. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--] (]) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
:Concur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
:Concur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of ]. SarekOfVulcan you have been ], were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely ]. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to ], and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of Lent. SarekOfVulcan you have been activly involved in this discussion, were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely Ireland. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --Domer48'fenian' 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
