This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gracenotes (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 16 June 2007 (→Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:47, 16 June 2007 by Gracenotes (talk | contribs) (→Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage: note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This user is under the microscope of the cabal. For more information, try joining some mailing lists. |
| ||
| F | This user has been rated as F-Class on the project's quality scale. | |||
<> anyone knows how to get the "noteability" flag removed from a page?
<CharlotteWebb> , see the link that says "edit this page"
<> CharlotteWebb: thanks! that worked
War on idiocy:
- "Notability": is not and never has been policy .
- "Consensus": please learn to spell it before claiming one exists .
- "Merge and delete": is not a valid result of an AFD debate .
 |
Archives |
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 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 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My E-mail.
Thanks, I've replied back. Acalamari 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Nomination.
Acalamari would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Acalamari to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.- {{helpme}}! â CharlotteWebb 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Haha! GDonato (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Tor proxies and your RfA
If you want to give a good argument for why Tor proxies are good in general, go ahead. You may well convince some people. Personally, I didn't know much about them or think much of them one way or the other, before your RfA. I suspect the same is true of lots of people.
If you want to explain why you personally need them, or use them, that's great, that's what the question was about. But if you keep avoiding the question and instead try to turn this into an attack on Jayjg, you will turn a lot of people against you.
Think of how Acalamari nominated you. "CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that." Keeping your cool is an important part of being an admin, which is why Acalamari emphasized it so much. You're not doing that.
Think of what you, yourself wrote: "Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it?" That could have been phrased a lot better, but in any case, Jayjg has now explained. Your turn. --AnonEMouse 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage
Hello, I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
On your RFA, I assumed that you would have no problem soft-blocking TOR nodes (thus enforcing policy). If I am wrong, please indicate that somewhere, and I shall strike my comments. Gracenotes § 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)