| Revision as of 14:52, 9 July 2011 editPrioryman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers27,962 edits →Pretty please: - no enemies lists, please← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:55, 9 July 2011 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Pretty please: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :Second. You really should not be trying to control the content of that RfC. Your recent removal of information is not supported by ]. ]. ] (]) 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | :Second. You really should not be trying to control the content of that RfC. Your recent removal of information is not supported by ]. ]. ] (]) 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Cla68, this is the second time you've tried to add an "enemies list" to that RfC. Please stop trying to do that. The RfC is supposed to be about Cirt, not about your "enemies list". ] (]) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | ::Cla68, this is the second time you've tried to add an "enemies list" to that RfC. Please stop trying to do that. The RfC is supposed to be about Cirt, not about your "enemies list". ] (]) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Perhaps "enemies list" is too strong. It is sufficient to say that an RFC is about the subject, and we should not use it to talk about third parties. I believe an arbitration case will be openned soon. Cla68, why don't you save your evidence and post it there? Arbitration is a much better form of dispute resolution for multilateral disputes. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:55, 9 July 2011
 | Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
 | There's been a lot of communication over the ages. To find a previous conversation, please search the archives. |
Pretty please
Can I respectfully ask you to please not take anymore clerical or administrative actions on the RfC as you did here? Your involvement has been questioned so it would be much better if you just asked an uninvovled admin to handle these types of things. Having you take such actions will simply cause more drama. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Second. You really should not be trying to control the content of that RfC. Your recent removal of information is not supported by the directive page. Here either. Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, this is the second time you've tried to add an "enemies list" to that RfC. Please stop trying to do that. The RfC is supposed to be about Cirt, not about your "enemies list". Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "enemies list" is too strong. It is sufficient to say that an RFC is about the subject, and we should not use it to talk about third parties. I believe an arbitration case will be openned soon. Cla68, why don't you save your evidence and post it there? Arbitration is a much better form of dispute resolution for multilateral disputes. Jehochman 14:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, this is the second time you've tried to add an "enemies list" to that RfC. Please stop trying to do that. The RfC is supposed to be about Cirt, not about your "enemies list". Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)