| Revision as of 15:23, 3 January 2007 edit210.210.75.113 (talk) →Pseudo-AFD question for RfA← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:10, 4 January 2007 edit undoBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 edits Thank you for your considerationNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| What's the logic behind your latest revert?] 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | What's the logic behind your latest revert?] 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :You need to leave edit-summaries, dear; and/or discuss on the talk page of the article before removing large contents of an article. Cheers! — ] 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | :You need to leave edit-summaries, dear; and/or discuss on the talk page of the article before removing large contents of an article. Cheers! — ] 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Thank you for your consideration == | |||
| Thank you for the consideration you gave to ]. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA . You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:10, 4 January 2007
user - talk - contributions - email - desk - sandbox - status:
|
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For being a helpful administrator, offering his services to those who need them, I award you the Original Barnstar. ST47Talk 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
Pseudo-AFD question for RfA
You have a pseudo AFD at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Desk/AfD, that you used for posing a question in BostonMA's RfA. Another user there commented that this AFD page triggered a content filter on his computer. If you intend to repeat use of the question, could you create/find some similar AFD that wouldn't trigger a content filter? There ought to be one around that is equally challenging, but doesn't trigger content filters. GRBerry 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind for the future. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about using one that is hypothetical, on a topic that you weren't personally involved, and doesn't demonstrate that you're trying to prove a point? —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you eat shit and die, Malber? You have done nothing but point-mongering on Misplaced Pages. Do you plan to publish a thesis on the troll-hives you work on when you are not busy disrupting Misplaced Pages? 210.210.75.113 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about using one that is hypothetical, on a topic that you weren't personally involved, and doesn't demonstrate that you're trying to prove a point? —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Dmcdevit
Er I think you misread my meaning and also what side in this dispute I'm on. :-) --Spartaz 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Just to be clear this is your edit that I'm referring to
- One revert is not equal to "edit-warring". Edit-warriors get blocked. Dmcdevit, certainly did not edit-war over the page. Your frequent assumptions of bad faith are waaay out of line. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm getting stick for referring to some of those bringing the RFC as being vindictive, showing poor judgement amnd just being plain nasty. Are you sure you have the right editor? --Spartaz 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- That message was not directed at you. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Stupid question
I can't believe you would have created an AfD in your userspace, and then asked a prospective RfA candidate to close it properly. I admit, I'm in a quandary, trying to decide who to be more disgusted with, you for having done so, on both counts, or him for having spouted such a lot of mealymouthism in order to not inadvertently piss off anyone reading it. This, as you know, is completely inappropriate, as it deliberately bypasses WP:AFD, aka, "the proper channels". Almost worse, is your asking someone whose WikiLife, as it were, hangs in the balance, to go and "catastrophically" edit your own WikiSpace. Far worse than that, of course, is the pandering response your request elicited, but still... What on earth were you thinking?! Op'n eck fæ Påstals, Tomer 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The word "stupid" is veeery subjective. In case you apply the appropriate policies and guidelines over the issue; you'll arrive at an answer which is above the so-called "consensus" thing. Feel free to remove this ridiculous thread from my talk page, in case you are more disgusted. Chao. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Working on "completely headless"? Tomer 09:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Go away. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Going back to work...at the post office... Tomer 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Go away. --Nearly Headless Nick 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Working on "completely headless"? Tomer 09:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
South Asian Games
What's the logic behind your latest revert?Shashankgupta 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- You need to leave edit-summaries, dear; and/or discuss on the talk page of the article before removing large contents of an article. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)