This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EVula (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 14 October 2008 (→Good call: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:12, 14 October 2008 by EVula (talk | contribs) (→Good call: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Status: Offline 
Good call
on Archiving the discussion on the one RfA...---Balloonman 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- But you might want to look at Caspian's latest endeavors...---Balloonman 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh - that didn't end up very pretty did it? I was optimistically hoping that by archving the discussion it might calm things down - the conversation had seriously moved from being a debate about an oppose to general name calling and tongue poking. Instead it looks like CB just pushed and pushed and forced it to spill over to BN, your talk and Scribe's talk. Template vandal warnings as well....... disappointing. Pedro : Chat 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was hoping that you were still on when I posted here... I TRIED to get away from it, but knew that CB needed somebody else... anything I might have done would have been called "Oppression."---Balloonman 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pedro, Enough. Unlike your false note, everybody including you do not move on per this conversation. Just leave me alone and let me move on.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- He is leaving you alone. We had all gotten over this. You're the only one who feels hard-done-by here, and you're the only one who is continuing old circular discussion for no apparent reason on various talk pages. You're simply making yourself look worse than you already do. -- how do you turn this on 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- We? Why can't you just stop following me? You've been following here again. You're the one who wants to continue the dramas and feels satisfaction of "oh, I've done good today". Just mind your own business.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm afraid so Caspian Blue. This conversation thread started last night, as you will see from the date stamps, when the issues were still ongoing. My note is not "false". You, however, are becoming disruptive. Please don't continue down that line. Pedro : Chat 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't you just stop chasing me and talking about me? I replied to only Balloonman for his lecture. So please, please, mind your business. Yesterday is over.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, you can't really say Pedro isn't leaving you alone when you're posting on his talk page. Pedro is well within his right to respond to you here, regardless of who you were talking to. (and that's ignoring the fact that anyone can respond to anyone) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't you just stop chasing me and talking about me? I replied to only Balloonman for his lecture. So please, please, mind your business. Yesterday is over.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- He is leaving you alone. We had all gotten over this. You're the only one who feels hard-done-by here, and you're the only one who is continuing old circular discussion for no apparent reason on various talk pages. You're simply making yourself look worse than you already do. -- how do you turn this on 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pedro, Enough. Unlike your false note, everybody including you do not move on per this conversation. Just leave me alone and let me move on.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was hoping that you were still on when I posted here... I TRIED to get away from it, but knew that CB needed somebody else... anything I might have done would have been called "Oppression."---Balloonman 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh - that didn't end up very pretty did it? I was optimistically hoping that by archving the discussion it might calm things down - the conversation had seriously moved from being a debate about an oppose to general name calling and tongue poking. Instead it looks like CB just pushed and pushed and forced it to spill over to BN, your talk and Scribe's talk. Template vandal warnings as well....... disappointing. Pedro : Chat 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1800 PHONEHOME
Hello Pedro...I styled my 1800 PHONEHOME entry much like the 1800 REVERSE entry. I have been operational for a short time and have not attracted negative press. Is this what makes the 1800 REVERSE entry acceptable? If that has nothing to do with it would you please give me some hints as to how to style the entry.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravestein123 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- They key thing is to establish notability. 1800 REVERSE seems to be notable when 1800 PHONEHOME isn't. The main problem however was that the phonehome article read more like an advert for the company than a description of why it is notable enough fo rinclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can find some independent third party reliable sources showing why 1800 PHONEHOME is important and notable, and make sure the article is fully neutral in tone then that would be fine. Pedro : Chat 12:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
Hi Pedro, keeping well? As a courtesy, I am just informing you that I endeavour to operate an informal mentoring scheme not dissimilar to yours. While I rarely post on WT:RFA, I always have an understanding of its status quo among the community. I'd like to think that many are familiar with my cool and collected disposition among tricky subjects (I think my RFA is testiment to it), and it is something I look forward to actively extending to WP:RFA. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck with it. Alas my WP time is more limited than it used to be :( but if you need any help please feel free to tap me up. Pedro : Chat 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)