| Revision as of 20:45, 1 January 2008 editHurricanehink (talk | contribs)Administrators61,839 edits →Inactive WPTC users: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:52, 2 January 2008 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Coredesat/Archive 15.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{administrator|tan}} | {{administrator|tan}} | ||
| {{User:Coredesat/Modified usertalk}} | {{User:Coredesat/Modified usertalk}} | ||
| == Deletion of ''Daniel Malakov'' == | |||
| '''Coredesat''' has, I have concluded, improperly deleted ], stating that he or she was (in doing so) '''disregarding''' multiple '''Keep''' arguments by the same editor. I am that editor. No attempt was made to conceal the authorship of my arguments to '''keep,''' as every argument subsequent to the first was enclosed parentheses as '''(Keep)'''. <br><br> It seems to me that ''prima facie'', '''Coredesat''' is violating Misplaced Pages policy: Deletion should not occur on the basis of a popularity contest. | |||
| <br><br> | |||
| Further, I was not the only one who argued for '''Keep.''' | |||
| <br><br> | |||
| The merits of the argument were never considered. The quantity of Misplaced Pages pages deleted by '''Coredesat''' in a short time (see deletion log) makes clear that '''Coredesat''' could not possibly have evaluated the issue on its merits. I suspect the same is true for other editors who voted to '''delete''' such as '''DGG.''' If this is what Misplaced Pages administrators mean by ''consensus,'' they are simply wrong and Misplaced Pages is nothing more than a ''tabloid'' (the one word Adminstrators eschew above all others) version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. | |||
| <br><br> | |||
| Further, the basis for deletion was '''notability''', a criterion for which there is no objective criterion. | |||
| </big><br><br>] (]) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::don't miss the expanded version he left on my talk page, it looks more impressive at , before i reformatted it. ''']''' (]) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *At ] ], you state that as Administrator you removed my legitimate if prolix argument to <u>overturn</u> the deletion of ] several days prior to the end of the five-day period provided for by ], stating<blockquote>''Your nomination is understood to be an argument to undelete - this tirade of bad faith is not necessary. I moved it to the talk page to make this page more manageable for other DRVs. --Coredesat 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)''</blockquote>Can you please identify exactly why you considered my statement to be a <u>tirade</u>? At a respected online , the word is defined as:<blockquote>''a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language''</blockquote>I need some help. Kindly identify language which is ''intemperate'', ''vituperative'', or ''harshly censorious''. I would have thought that, since the statement was a written one, it is not a ''prima facie'' candidate to be considered a ''tirade'' (at least according to this definition) because it is not <u>speech</u>. You were not obligated to listen to any ''protracted speech''. Could you kindly explain your deletion of my argumentation. <u>If at all possible, could you provide a source for removing lengthy arguments from the main page in ] proceedings?</u> ] (]) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *], thank you for writing on my user page. I guess we are going to have to disagree regarding your characterization there of my 8-part argument in favor of reversing deletion of ] as directed at yourself and DGG. As I wrote on the ] page, to reiterate, describing you as having a 'hot hand for deletion' is hardly an epithet. If the shoe fits, wear it. If deletion is something you feel is an altruistic effort on your part on behalf of Misplaced Pages (and in general it may well be), you should be proud of having a 'hot hand for deletion.' Why not put it on your user page?<br>Now that I've got your attention, would you possibly consider supporting a Misplaced Pages page called ], which could migrate to the name of the murderer(s) once they are convicted? ] (]) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Comments after unblocking == | |||
| Hi there. I noticed the evidence you added to the arbitration case. One thing didn't quite strike true when I read it. I remember the comment you made : ''"I have (very grudgingly) removed Giano's autoblock."''. The "very grudgingly" aspect doesn't come across at all the way you have presented your evidence. The impression I get is that Giano's comments had provoked this "grudging" attitude on your part, but this is not clear. If you made clearer in your evidence that you were feeling this way, that would help clear up a few things. The impression I got from your comment was that you were begrudging something, and that sounds an awful lot like holding a grudge (or maybe just being disgruntled). I've seen this several times now in several cases, and a lingering reluctance to undo an unblock is never a good sign on either side, and is usually a sign that the admin is getting too involved and is taking things personally. I feel that unblocking should be all or nothing. Once you've decided to unblock, it should be done with good grace and an eye to healing the situation, not fostering resentment with comments like "very grudgingly". What do you think? Anything worth putting in evidence? ] (]) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for adding that section to the evidence. Many people I know wouldn't have done that. About the frustration you felt, really, this is not worth leaving over. Taking a break or doing different things for a while nearly always helps to put things in perspective. ] (]) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Signpost'' updated for December 26th, 2007. == | == ''Signpost'' updated for December 26th, 2007. == | ||
Revision as of 12:52, 2 January 2008
|
This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Coredesat. | |
|---|---|
|
Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. My user talk archives |
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear Coredesat, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
WikBack
Thanks for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. If someone other than you registered in your name (or if you have no idea what this is about), please let me know immediately as it may be an imposter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Inactive WPTC users
Just to let you know, since you did not respond to the previous message, your status within the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has been transferred to inactive. However, it merely looks like you're away, so when you come back, I hope you change your status back to active. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)