| Revision as of 22:26, 15 December 2014 editTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,360 edits →Would appreciate your viewpoint: :::Ahh, well, your anti-gun, huh? You're one of ''those'' people. Ahh well, I've never let politics get in the way of who I've felt was good admin material before. I am concerned about the edit warring and disjoint← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:17, 13 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,441 edits →The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
{{Administrator review|TParis 2}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|
|archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{tmbox |
|
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{tmbox |
|
|small = {{{small|}}} |
|
|small = {{{small|}}} |
| Line 14: |
Line 18: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:TParis/Nav}} |
|
{{User:TParis/Nav}} |
|
|
{{semi-retired}} |
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|small = {{{small|}}} |
|
|
|image = none |
|
|
|style = text-align: center; |
|
|
|text = '''Notification of pending semi-retirement:'''<br> |
|
|
Upon the completion of my ] edit-a-thon project, I will be retiring the mop completely and my editing will be turning to a semi-retirement. I plan to restrict my editing to ] and ] topics entirely and my editing rate is going to decrease dramatically. I simply have no more interest in the bickering, disrespect for each other, and the level of incompetence among editors and administrators concerning management. I'm frustrated by the WMF, I'm frustrated by Sue Gardener's 'legacy', I'm frustrated that people of differing viewpoints cannot get along, but I think the thing that frustrates me the most is the level of advocacy on Misplaced Pages. I've lost hope in a NPOV encyclopedia. I don't think a popular encyclopedia can also be a neutral encyclopedia.<p>To put simply, I cannot handle the level of righteousness here.<p>I'm retaining the mop until my project is complete so I can assist participants with their needs but also to provide me some legitimacy as I attempt to bring local partners into the project (such as libraries, museums, and universities). Thanks for caring to read. Know that this has been a long time in thought and the decision was not made rashly. Any 'crat seeing this message after 1 March 2015 may remove my sysop rights if I have not either retracted this statement or made the request myself.<p>Leading up to my departure, I will be clearing my watchlist. If you wish to take over keeping an eye on some of these items, these are the pages I current keep an eye on: ].}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|
|archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
|
{| style="clear:both;" |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == |
|
== Image == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at . It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - ]] 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per ]. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - ]] 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - ]] 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''30 year old campaign and still running. |
|
|
|
|
|
:So. Fucking. What. |
|
|
|
|
|
''Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing, |
|
|
|
|
|
:And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not ]. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --] | ] 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - ]] 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tps}}I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. ] (]) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
== ANI == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your email == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I got the email you sent me. As far as the MEDRS subpage thing is concerned, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted the way you read it. I do think this guideline is an important one and try to follow it as much as possible, but in the subpage I was talking about how it is inconvenient. Given that your email has led me to think about the issue of whether this looks like I am complaining unconstructively, though, I have tagged the subpage for deletion. Thanks for the feedback. ] ] 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Absolutely. Let me know if I can do anything else for you. If it helps, I've reviewed 13 people since September and so far have only nommed 3. You're well within a future admin candidate zone but just have a few things to consider. I'd be happy to nom you in 6 months.--v/r - ]] 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|
== Signing == |
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> |
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|
|
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|
Hi TP. Could you sign your DS alert to ]? It's good for the user to have someone to ask if they don't understand the notice. Thanks, ] (]) 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hmm, I figured the template would do it for me. Thanks for the heads up, I went back and signed it.--v/r - ]] 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::According to ] you can specify sig=yes, but it's not the default. ] (]) 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
== Shooting of Michael Brown == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div> |
|
I noticed your comments at ANI about ] and there are numerous cases of ] violations, misinformation and POV pushing. Pro-Wilson, Pro-Brown sections mingled with completely inappropriate analogies and assumptions. A call for a non-involved admin was requested and while I am not one, there are dozens of issues in the article that need to be immediately removed per BLP. Perhaps I was a little harsh by stating that editors blocking the NPOV tag should be blocked, but those involved are either blind to policy or complicit in the violations. ] (]) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
:I've got a opinion about the issue and so I probably couldn't remain impartial enough to be an uninvolved administrator. Besides, blatant NPOV violations protected by the system because sysops are unwilling to enforce NPOV when it suits their politics is exactly why I am leaving the project. I feel like I've done my part to combat radical conservatives trying to push conservative POV on this project but I just don't see that sort of effort from my counterparts.--v/r - ]] 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> |
|
::TP, it's a great shame you feel you have to go, but before you do leave the project, I think you owe it to us to bring such admins to book (if you haven't already done so, that is) or at least lay the trail. I for one, am one admin who is on the warpath for misbehaving sysops, mainly because I'm fed up of us all being tarred with the same brush by the anti-admin brigade, and for the reason why I became an admin in the first place after having been 'assaulted' and insulted by rogue admins years ago. Regards, ] (]) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As a self-identified "conservative" (I'm not so sure I'm "radical" or not) I also would want to have someone at least have the problem editors identified, and I think Kudpung would be a great choice. Regarding some things, like I guess BLP, conservatively erring on the side of caution is probably a good idea in general, but I have to say that if this site winds up being the ] <small>involuntary gag response</small> of the net, none of us, conservatives or otherwise, do ourselves any damn good whatsoever. Civil or nominally civil POV pushing is one of the biggest problems we have, and several arbs and potential arbs among others have clearly recognized that. Letting someone else know who the worst offenders of that type are would definitely be something that would be in everyone's interests. ] (]) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Let's just put it this way, I'm not going to name names, but anyone who pushes Media Matters for America as a reliable source and disputes whether Fox News is a reliable source is a POV pusher. It's that simple. I'm tired of the double standard with regard to source-bias. I'm tired of the editors who push that point of view with a straight (civil) face. And I'm tired of the sysops who encourage and support those editors in disputes because it serves their own purposes such as social or political advocacy. Once again, Santorum is a perfect example. Compare that article to "You didn't build that". The more Misplaced Pages becomes a cultural icon, the worse it becomes. It's not getting better and I don't want to be part of it anymore. The "encyclopedia" is a tool of activism, now.--v/r - ]] 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sad to say, the encyclopedia has ''always'' been a tool of activism. I started editing in 2004 and we had to drag a POV-pusher all the way to ArbCom because he couldn't let that election go. ] <small>(])</small> 20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If he's speaking about encyclopedias in general, though, not just wikipedia, I have to say that I think in some cases he is kind of justified there too. There are at least a few encyclopedic articles relating to religious topics, generally smallish groups or movements or ideologies, which at least to my eyes read more like press releases than neutral overviews. And I seem to remember seeing at least some reviews of encyclopedias relating to recent historical developments being criticized as obviously partisan. And I'm still stunned the last print edition of Britannica contained an article on the Catholic Church which included in its bibliography 4 sources relating to the history of Catholicism in the UK and 3 relating to the history of Catholicism in the entire southern hemisphere combined, with an article rather clearly reflecting that bias. |
|
|
::::::I don't know if it has any chance of working, but I remember ], who probably knows more specifically about religion in general than I do, saying recently that in some ways we are trying to do here something that even most print encyclopedias don't do, which is be both neutrally encyclopedic and up-to-date. I agree we ain't really doing a good job of getting there, and I can well imagine people giving up trying, but I'm an unrealistic optimist in a lot of ways and I can hope that maybe sometime we might be able to in some way maybe at least cover most everything that the major topical encyclopedias cover. If we even do that, which we are still a long way from doing, that is at least something. ] (]) 20:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The problem is any one person thinking they alone can present an unbiased and neutral perspective on anything. Only by cooperating with others, and I do not mean with our political and ideological allies, can we find balance. Our tendency lately has been to issue one sided topic bans and interaction bans or site bans that entirely and unequivocally prohibit that from happening.<p>The rule of civil POV pushing goes like this: remain calm and dismiss your opponents concerns in the most simplistic and patronizing way possible. Whatever it takes to get an opponent to slip. Because once they slip, you have a direct line to their nerves. Civil POV pushing is a cancer to this project and no one is willing to address it and sysops routinely play their role in the strategy.--v/r - ]] 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Those first two sentences describe well how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Nobody is neutral but everyone should ''try'' to be. Collaboration is supposed to compensate for any one person's inherent biases and allow collaborators to point out and compensate for each other's biases. This process is disrupted by POV pushers because the collaborative equilibrium is thrown out of whack when one party isn't trying to be neutral and the other parties are. It doesn't matter how civil the POV pusher is because the effect is the same in the end. I'd love to see POV pushers banned entirely but I'm not sure how to frame a policy in a way that is fair to everyone, even if such a policy could ever be accepted by the techno-libertarian-utopianists who equate freedom with being able to act like an asshole online and make up a large percentage of vocal Misplaced Pages editors. Not the least problem with framing the policy is how we decide who a civil POV pusher is. I have some names that I could share privately with you and I'm sure you do as well, and we'd probably vehemently disagree about our respective lists. ] <small>(])</small> 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{ec}}Probably would. On the other hand, we'd also be aware of some of the behaviors and we'd be able to be more aware on our own. The issue I find is just about everyone claims they are the ones trying to be neutral while the other isn't. And, I'm sorry to say and I don't mean it as a pejorative, but most of our admin and editor base hold liberal beliefs. I do not know of any other admin that is openly conservative. According to isidewith.com, I am just left of center but on Misplaced Pages I am described as conservative. That tells me something. If a barely liberal sysop like me is considered conservative on here, then our center isn't matching up to the world outside of this project. Perhaps it's because the American center is to the right of most of Europe? I don't know. But I do know that, depending on the topic, there is a hostility toward conservatives. I also know that depending on other topics (such as religion) that there is a hostility toward liberals. I don't know and your perspective is probably completely different then mine.<p>But from where I am sitting, I just don't see any way at all to get this project to take any claim of an overall political bias seriously and it's been draining on my faith in the project. There are only two ways forward, I could start whining everywhere that we're dismissing claims of bias too easily and become disruptive or I can just quietly bow my head and humbly leave. I don't want to leave is some kind of anger and frustration over the issue and so I gave everyone a 6-month heads up. But I would have left the day I decided to leave 12 months ago if I didn't think the project would think I am just some radical-conservative who has been playing nice for so long finally blowing up. I'd rather just shake hands with everyone and leave as friends and so I set a date far enough out where no one's shock would cause them to become defensive over my views and think ill of me.--v/r - ]] 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I don't doubt that what you say is true. However, I have the opposite impression of editors here, having witnessed hordes of conservative editors constantly scrubbing clean the articles of conservatives and advocating the use of ''Breitbart'' as an RS while deriding the ''New York Times''. And I think we're both right to an extent, as perhaps, due to their inherent biases, people are more likely to notice and remember abuse of a certain type. I think after years in the trenches a battleground mentality develops, despite good intentions and efforts to the contrary. After years of seeing and being the victim of POV pushing and abuse, an editor is less inclined to see a well-intentioned editor of a different political persuasion as a collaborator and more likely to see them as as more radical than they really are. (Which I think may be in part why some people like myself have perceived you as more conservative than the actual you.) It would be nice to get rid of the well-poisoning POV-pushers so well-intentioned editors could collaborate in a harmonious atmosphere, but I have no idea how to accomplish that. ] <small>(])</small> 00:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I think you've added two perspectives to it that I hadn't considered before. One being that you are seeing the exact same thing from the other side, which I always assumed to be true, but you frame it in a different context with the same conclusions. The second is that what you describe is essentially that editors have become jaded - and understandably so. I don't know what the solution is either, but I think open discussions like the one we're having is the start.--v/r - ]] 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Stupid as it sounds, and believe me I know it sounds stupid, the best thing I can think of to help address POV concerns and WEIGHT concerns and other matters is to just see what as many of the relevant well-regarded reference works as we can see say on a topic, and try to balance them out and include as much of the relevant content somewhere, in some article. Even that will only work for content old enough to be included in such, of course, and the article at the title of this thread isn't one of them. But I can honestly say that even looking at all the good reference sources can be a terrifying undertaking. The ALA Guide to Reference website lists somewhere over 3,000 well-regarded reference sources, and it doesn't cover very well a lot of reference works related to material not regularly of interest to Americans. ] (]) 22:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} I've had my issues with NYT and I've had my issues with Fox and all the others. I do not trust any source based on its origins. Misplaced Pages needs to adopt that stance, but as long as people are thinking of reliability and verifiability being tied to a publisher or brand... well, its going to be shitty. I do not even trust NRHP listings, because people make errors or assumptions that get picked up by mistake. I am free from much politic bickering in NRHP, but ] has incorrect dates and the NRHP nomination bungles quite a bit. I try to keep out of political arguments because they are described as two halves of a coin which is really a die. You want to know a scary progression of Misplaced Pages thought mirrors philosophy and we are to subscribe to Kant's flawed concepts of intention-based morality. The cynics may like ]'s notions, but thankfully neither that or ] theories hold out. Its a bit of game theory and true morality which governs the interactions of the good-natured. Most people, in the wider community innately follow the same path, but those with a mission deviate and cause the most disruption of those who normally would defend themselves. Shame its not a perfect analogy for real life. ] (]) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 223, November 2024 == |
|
== Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the ] and ] of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, {{u|TomStar81}} |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
|
{| |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1256183913 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards == |
|
] (]) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:TomStar81@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=637824036 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting is now open for the ] ] and ] awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes ] and ] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via ] (]) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== A kitten for you! == |
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Hawkeye7@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1259903100 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Always precious == |
|
] |
|
|
|
] |
|
I haven't always agreed with you, but I appreciate that you understand that "No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." Messengers such as myself will lose a fair officer when you hang up your mop. |
|
|
|
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I remember that! I believe this was also the same day that ] hit the front page for the first time too. Thank you! v/r - ]] 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
|
|
:Thanks for the kitten. After I didn't receive a response to my last email, I was afraid I'd scared you off. Figured you identified as a liberal christian on your user page and said you had your bible handy, so I felt pretty confident that I wouldn't be encroaching on your beliefs by quoting from it, but when you were silent I was concerned I'd offended you.--v/r - ]] 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 224, December 2024 == |
|
== Would appreciate your viewpoint == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
Hi TP, I consider you a "cut through the BS" kind of Admin and there's a situation that I think could benefit from your perusal. |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
|
{| |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
* Op-ed: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1264992348 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 225, January 2025 == |
|
There was a recent ] involving this article ] (that presented as simple content dispute) with one particular ] who has been after numerous messages and pings on the article ] ''and'' the . This person has gone so far as to their Talk page, so we know that they have seen the messages. In fact, when I informed this person of such, my comment was again with an edit summary that I was making a threat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
Rather than take this again to ANI or another Noticeboard, will you take a look? Thank you in advance for any help or insight you can provide, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
:I'll take a look. On the subject of admins, though, could I entice you to endure one of my admin reviews for an RfA?--v/r - ]] 21:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{| |
|
::Wow, that was a swift and decisive response...! |
|
|
|
| ] |
|
::As for the request, do you mean weigh in on active RfA's or "go through the meat grinder"? I've never made a secret about aspiring to become an Admin, but at the very least I probably need to wait until my Topic ban has expired in January. LB and I share it currently. But I am happy to accept any advice or criticism in preparation for the Gauntlet... :) --] ] ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
:::Ahh, well, your anti-gun, huh? You're one of ''those'' people. Ahh well, I've never let politics get in the way of who I've felt was good admin material before. I am concerned about the edit warring and disjointed communication, though. At first, I thought perhaps you two could talk it out but I think the edit warring would still be brought up in an RfA. Perhaps it is wise to wait until it expires, and then some.--v/r - ]] 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
* Op-ed: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1266423875 --> |
