| Revision as of 06:02, 10 September 2008 editJohn Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk | contribs)79 edits →my talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:13, 10 September 2008 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Re: Request for uninvolved user in ArbCom case: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| Re : Sorry, but I do not think that I am in a position to comment on it. I was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the topic ban nor am I familiar with the issue. -- ] (]) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | Re : Sorry, but I do not think that I am in a position to comment on it. I was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the topic ban nor am I familiar with the issue. -- ] (]) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Re : There is quite a bit of material to review. However, I am not at all inclined to tell arbitrators what they need to do. Their decisions are their decisions. -- ] (]) 07:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == my talk page == | == my talk page == | ||
Revision as of 07:13, 10 September 2008
 | Daedalus969 is taking an unexpected wikibreak due to computer problems, but hopes to be back soon. |
User talk:Daedalus969/Header.js
"Live-action" vs. "Live action"
Sorry about the talk page problem with my attempt to move Live action role-playing game to Live-action role-playing game, I should have foreseen that problem. I attempted the move the proper way the first time, but because the article Live-action role-playing game already existed as a redirect, only an administrator could complete the move. I'm sorry, I should have put in a request for one of them (one of you?) to do so.
Nevertheless, the latter form ("live-action") is correct, and should be preferred, IMHO.
As for the need for consensus, I was simply following the policy to be bold. Of course, I don't take your reversion personally...but more explanation than simply "You moved too fast" might be nice. Do you object to the change yourself? If so, why not also revert Live-action and List of live-action role-playing groups as well?
BTW, calling me a "new user" is a little bit silly; I've just been inactive for a while. GreetingsEarthling (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus /Improve 07:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit to User:GreetingsEarthling
this edit was mistaken. WP:EL is irrelevant; those are the standards for links from articles, not user pages. WP:NOT seems relevant, but a single modest link to more information about GreetingsEarthling is clearly covered by WP:USERPAGE. "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Policing user pages for trivial infractions isn't helpful to Misplaced Pages and may hurt your reputation. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus /Improve 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- (The following was copied by Alan De Smet from Daedalus's reply above, to keep the conversation in one place.) Seeing as how the page that is linked promotes other websites: Artsandfaith.com - Fascinating art criticism (particularly film) in a POV manner, I believe that would fall under promotional.— Dædαlus /Improve 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page" implies, "so long as your home page is absolute NPOV and free of links to other sites you like?" In your zeal to defend Misplaced Pages, I fear you have become too focused on the letter of the guidelines and policies and have started overlooking the intent. (As is probably obvious, I'm watching this page now, so we can keep the conversation collected.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus /Improve 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page" implies, "so long as your home page is absolute NPOV and free of links to other sites you like?" In your zeal to defend Misplaced Pages, I fear you have become too focused on the letter of the guidelines and policies and have started overlooking the intent. (As is probably obvious, I'm watching this page now, so we can keep the conversation collected.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Request for uninvolved user in ArbCom case
Re your message: Sorry, but I do not think that I am in a position to comment on it. I was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the topic ban nor am I familiar with the issue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: There is quite a bit of material to review. However, I am not at all inclined to tell arbitrators what they need to do. Their decisions are their decisions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
my talk page
How can you block me on the basis of "vandalizing" my own talk page? See WP:TPG if you're unfamiliar with this policy --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)