| Revision as of 00:27, 6 October 2009 editManning Bartlett (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users8,107 edits →Clerking actions: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 2 June 2010 edit undo72.192.46.9 (talk) →Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| Thanks for adding the motion to the Arbcom template. We shouldn't have missed that one but help is always gratefully accepted. Cheers ] (]) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | Thanks for adding the motion to the Arbcom template. We shouldn't have missed that one but help is always gratefully accepted. Cheers ] (]) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation == | |||
| Thanks kindly! I personally read it Cla68's statement to have a meaning similar 'he may be editing that article because he thinks it's associated with Derek Smart and his history has shown a propensity toward wanting negative things to be associated with Derek Smart' as opposed to 'He has a negative view toward diploma mills, and therefore inputs negative information about diploma mills', my original thinking was that my interpretation made sense since the request for further blocking extended to only that one article, but I only wanted to mention why I was thinking in those terms. | |||
| I agree that it's very similar in interpretation anyway, I just noticed that in a prior interaction I came off more short than I intended with someone else. I wanted to let you know I wasn't intending to belittle or deride your point of view, and I honestly am thankful for your research assistance! With regards to your side note, I believe single purpose editors are likely to get further scrutiny, but are not unwelcome outright. They must be uninterested in a neutral point of view (advancing an agenda rather than creating an encyclopedia) to get blocked. This is based off a wikilink reading from when you typed single purpose account though, and not on a well-versed knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules. ] (]) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 2 June 2010
Gold Stars
|
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| For doing my job for me: specifically, re-ordering the mire of proposed principles and FoFs on the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case to make them readable. David Mestel 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| With gratitude, for helping me file an RfC after my long and fruitless wrestle with the bot. SlimVirgin 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Clerking actions
Thanks for adding the motion to the Arbcom template. We shouldn't have missed that one but help is always gratefully accepted. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation
Thanks kindly! I personally read it Cla68's statement to have a meaning similar 'he may be editing that article because he thinks it's associated with Derek Smart and his history has shown a propensity toward wanting negative things to be associated with Derek Smart' as opposed to 'He has a negative view toward diploma mills, and therefore inputs negative information about diploma mills', my original thinking was that my interpretation made sense since the request for further blocking extended to only that one article, but I only wanted to mention why I was thinking in those terms.
I agree that it's very similar in interpretation anyway, I just noticed that in a prior interaction I came off more short than I intended with someone else. I wanted to let you know I wasn't intending to belittle or deride your point of view, and I honestly am thankful for your research assistance! With regards to your side note, I believe single purpose editors are likely to get further scrutiny, but are not unwelcome outright. They must be uninterested in a neutral point of view (advancing an agenda rather than creating an encyclopedia) to get blocked. This is based off a wikilink reading from when you typed single purpose account though, and not on a well-versed knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)