| Revision as of 17:12, 1 February 2006 editInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →Cuppa tea?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:50, 23 February 2006 edit undoAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits Assuming good faith and all...Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | :Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Assuming good faith and all... == | |||
| Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about ''your'' good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting<br/> | |||
| ::<span style = "font-sixe: 80%; color: blue;">24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.<br/>Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)</span><br/> | |||
| I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why ''you'' think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?<br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:50, 23 February 2006
Welcome to my talk page. Please abide by the following guidelines:
- Sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
- To start a new topic of discussion, use this link.
- To continue a pre-existing topic of discussion, edit the relevant section.
- If you're going to be using talk page comment templates, subst: them and remember to actually sign them. I deserve that much consideration.
- I will respond on my talk page.
- I archive my talk page arbitrarily.
Cuppa tea?
Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. KillerChihuahua 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. InkSplotch 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith and all...
Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about your good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting
- 24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.
Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- 24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.
I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why you think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?
brenneman 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)