| Revision as of 04:15, 24 August 2008 editPromethean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,237 edits Manualy archiving eyesore messages← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:09, 24 August 2008 edit undoDeskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits →Re: Comments to User talk:Deskana: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| :I dont think your any more appalling then some of the candidates ive seen, At the time you were about a 4.5 on the candidate scale (0 = Appualing, 10 = Excellent). I would have opposed for the in-experiance (and i did) but im ashamed to admit the the atheist userbox did come to mind and closed the deal, which was somewhat un-professional of me. That given if you run again I would probably support now. However im not willing nominate you (not that you've asked), I have a reputation at this time that could be contagious and would hate to lower your chances of you success. ] ] 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :I dont think your any more appalling then some of the candidates ive seen, At the time you were about a 4.5 on the candidate scale (0 = Appualing, 10 = Excellent). I would have opposed for the in-experiance (and i did) but im ashamed to admit the the atheist userbox did come to mind and closed the deal, which was somewhat un-professional of me. That given if you run again I would probably support now. However im not willing nominate you (not that you've asked), I have a reputation at this time that could be contagious and would hate to lower your chances of you success. ] ] 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks; it wasn't un-professional at all; the concerns raised were valid. Ironically the only possible unprofessionalism would be the same logic as the oppose from the other side. I was opposed since showing my atheistic beliefs would make any edits to do with religious material suspect regardless of my intentions; in contrast, the only reason your oppose could be considered un-professional would be if it was driven by ''your'' religious beliefs :P. I know that probably isn't the case, but I find it funny anyway, haha. I'd rather have spontaneous nom's rather than "hey, can you sponsor me?"; a good friend of mine did that'n a while back, and while I feel he is an excellent bloke to be wielding the banhammer I do feel that tainted the proceedings (at least for me) somewhat. In regards to your reputation; massive cock-ups are normally extremely visible on WP, and i've heard nothing, so it can't be ''that'' bad. ]] 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ::Thanks; it wasn't un-professional at all; the concerns raised were valid. Ironically the only possible unprofessionalism would be the same logic as the oppose from the other side. I was opposed since showing my atheistic beliefs would make any edits to do with religious material suspect regardless of my intentions; in contrast, the only reason your oppose could be considered un-professional would be if it was driven by ''your'' religious beliefs :P. I know that probably isn't the case, but I find it funny anyway, haha. I'd rather have spontaneous nom's rather than "hey, can you sponsor me?"; a good friend of mine did that'n a while back, and while I feel he is an excellent bloke to be wielding the banhammer I do feel that tainted the proceedings (at least for me) somewhat. In regards to your reputation; massive cock-ups are normally extremely visible on WP, and i've heard nothing, so it can't be ''that'' bad. ]] 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Re: Comments to ] == | |||
| Prom3th3an, it is generally considered polite to warn a user before issuing them a block, so that's what I decided to do. If you do not wish to be warned, then I shall bear that in mind. --] <small>]</small> 10:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:09, 24 August 2008
——————————————— PROM3TH3AN's TALK PAGE ———————————————
Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator
Photograph credit: NASA
DMOZDMOZ links are acceptable, in fact, they are one of the ways of preventing linkfarms in articles. As far as worrying about the article inaccessable to those behind content filters... That's not our concern. –xeno (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Milton cooper was a criminalWhy you defending him, he attempted to murder a sheriff, wether you want to accept the truth or not! Your personal fantasy does not overide the truth. Block me and ill take action and change my IP in about 30 minutes :)--203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Editor ReviewHey, thanks for the review :). In response to the last comment i'm not currently looking to go for an RfA; i've decided to wait until someone else nominates me before doing so. Thanks, on that topic, for the oppose vote in my RfA, and that isn't sarcasm! Looking back I wouldn't have voted support, never mind other editors! So thanks for preventing the sysopping of a truly appalling admin candidate :P. Ironholds 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Comments to User talk:DeskanaProm3th3an, it is generally considered polite to warn a user before issuing them a block, so that's what I decided to do. If you do not wish to be warned, then I shall bear that in mind. --Deskana (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) |
