| Revision as of 18:34, 2 November 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 2 November 2005 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits ZephramNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Would you mind taking a look at ]? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | Would you mind taking a look at ]? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Zephram == | |||
| Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at ], where it is currently being voted on. It says: | |||
| :"The focus of this dispute is the article ] which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see ] and ]." | |||
| I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at ]. Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:53, 2 November 2005
Hello. Thanks for visiting my talk page.
I really enjoy hearing from people, but if you decide to post here you should know that I reserve the right to delete, without response, comments that I determine -- in my sole, exclusive, and quite probably biased judgment -- to be abusive, irrelevant, or simply annoying. BrandonYusufToropov 13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Please leave your comments below this line of text, placing new messages on the bottom.
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite
Would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Zephram
Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:
- "The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."
I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)