| Revision as of 04:28, 27 July 2005 view sourceDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits →Vfd on Islamic Term: just a little more explanation← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:37, 29 July 2005 view source Dominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits Personal attacksNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :The vote was NOT for redirect, but you know what? It doesn't matter. :) You can make it a redirect if you'd like. I don't think anyone is going to challenge you on it, including me. But it wasn't the result of the vote. --] 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | :The vote was NOT for redirect, but you know what? It doesn't matter. :) You can make it a redirect if you'd like. I don't think anyone is going to challenge you on it, including me. But it wasn't the result of the vote. --] 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, since I involved myself, let me explain myself more fully. The redirect is really immaterial, you can go ahead and do it yourself if you think it's worth the effort. All I'm saying, like Woohoo, is that the VfD consensus didn't lie in a redirect, but only delete. This isn't to say that anyone would have disagreed with it, but just that it wasn't the job of the closing admin. That's what irked me, that you would demand the closing admin do such a thing ''for'' you, when it was clearly an editorial decision (that you or anyone could have made), not an administerial one. There, enough time wasted on this. --]·] 04:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | ::Well, since I involved myself, let me explain myself more fully. The redirect is really immaterial, you can go ahead and do it yourself if you think it's worth the effort. All I'm saying, like Woohoo, is that the VfD consensus didn't lie in a redirect, but only delete. This isn't to say that anyone would have disagreed with it, but just that it wasn't the job of the closing admin. That's what irked me, that you would demand the closing admin do such a thing ''for'' you, when it was clearly an editorial decision (that you or anyone could have made), not an administerial one. There, enough time wasted on this. --]·] 04:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| I never said I didn't see Universaliss's comments as personal attacks. Yes, I saw the personal attacks (and I also consider calling another's POV "vandalism" a personal attack). That is why I made the warning on his talk page. I assure you, now that I made the warning (which goes both ways I might add) I fully expect the personal attacks to stop. As I can't monitor the situation 24 hours a day, I invite you to report any further attcks to me personally and I will enforce our policy with a block if necessary. Other than that, how is the actual ''content dispute'' going? Is progress being made? What's your take on my suggestions? --]·] 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:37, 29 July 2005
Comments
re:nomination
No, if i thought i had a chance to be fairly looked at on the basis of my contributions to this site rather than my opinions of the, lack of standards for adminship, lack of accountability with the admins, my decision not to submit to arbitarity policies made on the fly, and how the current administration of the site seems to be more concerned with the idea of protecting their own backs then the protection of accuracy and neutrality of information provided and a policy of basic appeasement towards vandalism and people that are here to promote an agenda either from the right or the left in which many admins would rather ignore if it does not effect them or interject them selves in on one side or the other, among other things. I find the RFA not a election, for that is what it is, based on the qualifications of a user but no more then a popularity contest. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
WP:CP#July 9
I've responded to the claims of copyvio in Fatima bint Asad, and, as you seemed to be involved with this page, I thought you ought to know. Thanks for your work on Misplaced Pages! JesseW 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah! Thank you for your explanation!(Random bystanders, see ) Now I understand what you meant on in the edit summary when you talked about looking all the way through the page. The reason I relisted it was that a copyright notice (at least in Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works signatories) is not required for something to be under copyright, and inelibble for inclusion into Misplaced Pages. Here are some pages to review in regards to this: Copyright#Copyright_notices, Misplaced Pages:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations, Public_domain#Expiration. After reading those pages, let me know if you still think the copied text is allowable, or if you have any other questions. Thanks for responding so quickly! (Also copied on my talk page) JesseW 00:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a sorted, uniqed list of User:Striver's contributions, at User:JesseW/status(which I use as a sort of sandbox) - I would delight in any help looking through it. I've also told him about the things you suggested. JesseW 02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thank you for your opinion on my RfA
Hello, just a quick note to say thank you for voting, even though you were not convinced of my experience. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Perhaps I am ready for it, or perhaps, as you say, I am not. I hope that in the coming weeks and months I can prove you wrong, but no matter what I thank you for giving your honest opinion, it is really important to me. Thank you. :) Garrett 11:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Vfd on Islamic Term
Actually the vote was 4 for delete, 1 for keep and we also 3 people who mention redirects, but only 2 actually mention redirect in the vote. That is not a vote for a delete and redirect. If you want to make it a redirect, that's your perogative, but I am not changing the vote. You can't assume that the deletes want it redirected. In fact, one of the deletes said that it should NOT be redirected. --Woohookitty 02:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The vote was NOT for redirect, but you know what? It doesn't matter. :) You can make it a redirect if you'd like. I don't think anyone is going to challenge you on it, including me. But it wasn't the result of the vote. --Woohookitty 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, since I involved myself, let me explain myself more fully. The redirect is really immaterial, you can go ahead and do it yourself if you think it's worth the effort. All I'm saying, like Woohoo, is that the VfD consensus didn't lie in a redirect, but only delete. This isn't to say that anyone would have disagreed with it, but just that it wasn't the job of the closing admin. That's what irked me, that you would demand the closing admin do such a thing for you, when it was clearly an editorial decision (that you or anyone could have made), not an administerial one. There, enough time wasted on this. --Dmcdevit·t 04:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks
I never said I didn't see Universaliss's comments as personal attacks. Yes, I saw the personal attacks (and I also consider calling another's POV "vandalism" a personal attack). That is why I made the warning on his talk page. I assure you, now that I made the warning (which goes both ways I might add) I fully expect the personal attacks to stop. As I can't monitor the situation 24 hours a day, I invite you to report any further attcks to me personally and I will enforce our policy with a block if necessary. Other than that, how is the actual content dispute going? Is progress being made? What's your take on my suggestions? --Dmcdevit·t 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)