| Revision as of 08:32, 23 November 2004 editTa bu shi da yu (talk | contribs)32,902 edits Truce← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:34, 23 November 2004 edit undoTa bu shi da yu (talk | contribs)32,902 edits →TruceNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| == Truce == | == Truce == | ||
| Netoholic, |
Netoholic, you wanted to know what the outcome of the arbitration would be. What I would like to have you do is talk more on the discussion pages, for you to stop shifting comments, for you to cease making more unilateral edits (for instance, don't blank and controversial page you don't agree with and redirect to a similar article) and for you to keep stuff on your talk page for longer, even if it is critical of you (the last one is only a request for courtesy). OK, now this has probably got you seeing red, and that's not my intention. I figure you'd want me to tell you flat out so we can work out a solution rather than go through a whole messy arbcom decision. | ||
| On my behalf, I'm willing to delete the copied talk pages, speak up for you at the arbcom (yes, strange I know) and be willing to go a little more easy on you than I have been (I'm not perfect either). You know, I did say that you were a good contributor on your election page, and I meant this. Its just I saw some of the ways that you edited ''really'' annoyed people (myself included, as I'm being honest with you). I didn't mind you voting VfD on the election controversies article, by the way, and in fact I agree with a whole ''ton'' of your points (especially the CNN screenshots - ugh), but the whole issue could have been dealt with a lot better. I also am willing to say that I put "fuel on the fire" so to speak. | On my behalf, I'm willing to delete the copied talk pages, speak up for you at the arbcom (yes, strange I know) and be willing to go a little more easy on you than I have been (I'm not perfect either). You know, I did say that you were a good contributor on your election page, and I meant this. Its just I saw some of the ways that you edited ''really'' annoyed people (myself included, as I'm being honest with you). I didn't mind you voting VfD on the election controversies article, by the way, and in fact I agree with a whole ''ton'' of your points (especially the CNN screenshots - ugh), but the whole issue could have been dealt with a lot better. I also am willing to say that I put "fuel on the fire" so to speak. | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| ] 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) | ] 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) | ||
| Oh, P.S. I'm reviewing my usage of the rollback function. You are correct, I am a bit hasty with this very handy tool. I've taken your comments on board, and I think on balance you are correct on this one. This isn't easy for me to say, btw. I don't like admitting I'm wrong! - ] 08:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:34, 23 November 2004
Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta
|
"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts."
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
"This thing that we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down."
|
"Don't be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid."
|
Surveys
This is an old issue, but I've recently decided that it might be useful to bring the Wikisource conundrum to a conclusion. I have belatedly added termination dates to the polls at Misplaced Pages talk:Sister projects and Misplaced Pages talk:Wikisource. I thought it fair to let you know (naturally, this need not bring about any action if you're no longer interested). If you disapprove of the current phrasing of the polls, it will be only proper if you mention this now. -- Itai 23:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Netoholic. Your hotmail account seems to be bouncing. Could you let me know which email I can contact you at please. It's not Misplaced Pages-related so I'd rather not put it here. Thanks. Angela. 13:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Templates for deletion
Do you have a problem with me removing these from the TfD page? Consensus has been to keep so far. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, they have been there for quite long enough, but I'll respect your request for another admin to work out whether they should be removed or not. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oops
Was it the wiki software or me? I was positive I'd removed Nov 11 and not Nov 12 :-/
My apologies for the trouble. Kim Bruning 15:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
TFD
No, I won't. They have been on there long enough. I haven't just targetted you, I've gone through all the old TFDs and removed them. Have a nice night, Netoholic. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Look, my last word for tonight. I removed the templates (probably should have held them in the holding area, but its not that important so long as all the templates are removed). You didn't read deletion policy, so that's hardly me insulting you. As I've said though, have a good night Netoholic. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I would like to put my 2 cents in and say that consensus is required for deletion. If consensus is not reached, the template can be kept. The debate does not last forever. --Hemanshu 16:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Deliberately tricking me into doing a rollback does not count. When you restored the templates for deletion I counted this as vandalism. Therefore I rolled back. You have only yourself to blame (though I should have noticed your sneakiness). - Ta bu shi da yu 16:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. Good night. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good night Netoholic. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re:TfD vote
I mean to convert it to a footer. This means that instead of having it sit at the upper right of the page it should sit at the center bottom. The text should be listed horizontally, not vertically. --Jiang 18:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Truce
Netoholic, you wanted to know what the outcome of the arbitration would be. What I would like to have you do is talk more on the discussion pages, for you to stop shifting comments, for you to cease making more unilateral edits (for instance, don't blank and controversial page you don't agree with and redirect to a similar article) and for you to keep stuff on your talk page for longer, even if it is critical of you (the last one is only a request for courtesy). OK, now this has probably got you seeing red, and that's not my intention. I figure you'd want me to tell you flat out so we can work out a solution rather than go through a whole messy arbcom decision.
On my behalf, I'm willing to delete the copied talk pages, speak up for you at the arbcom (yes, strange I know) and be willing to go a little more easy on you than I have been (I'm not perfect either). You know, I did say that you were a good contributor on your election page, and I meant this. Its just I saw some of the ways that you edited really annoyed people (myself included, as I'm being honest with you). I didn't mind you voting VfD on the election controversies article, by the way, and in fact I agree with a whole ton of your points (especially the CNN screenshots - ugh), but the whole issue could have been dealt with a lot better. I also am willing to say that I put "fuel on the fire" so to speak.
One last thing. I asked for a temp injunction on you, but I'm going to put an emphatic request that this be withdrawn, regardless of the outcome of this talk. I guess I'm doing this because you didn't push me to talk to you on IRC when I was feeling down, and I've noticed you don't really make personal attacks. I have also noticed that you have made some extremely valuable suggestions to articles (even if I've disagreed with some of your suggestions before). The whole dispute with you is not pleasant for me, and I'd say it hasn't been pleasant for you either. Its regrettable it happened, but I suppose things like this can happen on a website like this one.
So what do you say? Can we work things out? Can we (gasp!) talk to each other like adults? :-)
Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, P.S. I'm reviewing my usage of the rollback function. You are correct, I am a bit hasty with this very handy tool. I've taken your comments on board, and I think on balance you are correct on this one. This isn't easy for me to say, btw. I don't like admitting I'm wrong! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)