This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Siddiqui (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 16 February 2007 (→Re:Arbitration case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:30, 16 February 2007 by Siddiqui (talk | contribs) (→Re:Arbitration case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:David.Mestel/Archive_06. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5 and Archive 6.
Hi
Ignatzmice has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
The Signpost
Please clarify your summary of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
- "According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett."
Actually my evidence cites Ilena's own statement that she is the Rosenthal of that case. The pronoun she is ambiguous and problematic: Ilena asserts that Fyslee and Barrett are close associates; I'm female also so it's unclear which of us is being attributed. Fyslee has called himself a former associate of Barrett. I presented those claims to the committee and haven't done an independent investigation to determine how true they are. Durova 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just discovered this here and believe you should be very careful about how you use the word "associate" here. It can be understood in several ways, often implying a work colleague, partner, employee, boss, etc., none of which is true in this case.
- I am rather shocked to discover that this matter has been publicly mentioned in The Signpost, which I never read, without a requirement that both myself and Ilena approve of the text before its publication (IOW each other's statements). Such a procedure could help to avoid a repetition of possible (I'm speaking of matters of priniciple here) misrepresentations, defamations, insults, etc. in The Signpost. These are matters of an unsettled RfArb, and I would think such a matter should not be publicized before it is finished. Please be more careful in the future. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee (First law) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
I replied to your concern on My RfA. If you don't want to change your vote for some reason, I can live with that. But, on a personal level, I do want you to know that you misunderstood the meaning of that entry. I'm not that sort of person. Kafziel 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sarah Hanson-Young DRV
Multiple sources now provided in DRV, please have another look. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Sarah Hanson-Young — coelacan talk — 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. =) — coelacan talk — 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Freeper test
Generally on the money. Statements by uninvolved parties go on the talk page rather than the main page. Who is "involved" is sometimes a judgement call based on what they say in their statements. I probably would have kept more of the statements on the main page than brad did, but fewer than you did. That wouldn't cause any real grief, though, as someone who wanted to be listed as a party can always move their statement themself or ask a clerk. Thatcher131 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Arbitration case
Thankyou for informing me.--Nadirali نادرالی
I also request that user:Islescape be called to the case.His testimoney may be necessary as he has also been part of this ongoing dispute.Please do inform him.He may not be confident if i told him,but if a member of the Arbcom tells him,he may re-consider and come.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی
Okay thanks for explaining this.I will see if I can list Islescape.--Nadirali نادرالی
Thanks for for your note on my talk page. One user informed me by email since I don't visit Misplaced Pages anymore. You can read by brief on the arbitration page. I can be contacted by email address on my page. Siddiqui 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)