| Revision as of 00:05, 10 December 2006 editFroth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,002 edits added archive box← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 10 December 2006 edit undoFroth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,002 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- Template:Archive box begins --> | <!-- Template:Archive box begins --> | ||
| <div class="infobox" style="width: {{{box-width| |
<div class="infobox" style="width: {{{box-width|50px}}}"> | ||
| <div style="text-align: center">]<br /> | <div style="text-align: center">]<br /> | ||
| ''']''' | ''']''' | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 00:06, 10 December 2006
{{{1}}}
Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block
I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: . We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up --froth 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. StuRat 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rules for deletion
Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. I'd also like you to give my proposed rules for deletions an approve or oppose, however, in order to establish a consensus, if you're willing. BTW, you wrote "Some anon ip removed a very valid reply of sturat's earlier today", can you point me to the post in question or at least the Ref Desk in question ? Did you restore my post ? StuRat 10:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, here's the diff. --froth 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ouch!
I realize you're at least partly joking, but damn, do you really feel that I'm vicously censoring? I remove nonsense from all kinds of places all the time- this is the first I've heard it described as such. Friday (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, no of course not! Read it carefully- yes it would be unlikely for sex jokes to be mentioned in an article about reference desks, because they've only been one or two isolated incidents. In the same way it would be unlikely for viciously revert-happy admins to be mentioned in such an article because there aren't any. I could have used any example, but one so close to home seemed most potent :) --froth 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to be more polite about this since it's clear I've rubbed at least some people the wrong way. Friday (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate you asking for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions- some of us are still sore about similar things happening in the past --froth 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Bah. That's what I get for jumping in with both feet and not knowing the history. Thanks for the explanation. Friday (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate you asking for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions- some of us are still sore about similar things happening in the past --froth 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to be more polite about this since it's clear I've rubbed at least some people the wrong way. Friday (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?
Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?
Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Possbily not the kind of comment you expected, but I think I brick-walled the discussion while they all try to figure out what I actually said :) --froth 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)