User talk:Courcelles: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:45, 14 February 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

ArbCom

In your arbcom candidacy, you wrote the following statements: "If there is no need for privacy, the Committee shouldn't be doing things in private." Could you confirm that there is currently no action taking place on the "Civility enforcement" arbcom case, now frozen for 3 weeks+? If there is action, why is it taking place in private? What is the need for privacy? If you disagree with said privacy, why have you not posted a proposed decision? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really the problem with this case, from everything I've seen, is three drafters who are very busy in real life more than anything privacy related. Courcelles 03:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leno

Hi. I see that you had contributed to Dan Leno in the past. He was a well-known British musical comedy and music hall star around the 1890s. His article has recently been expanded and is headed for FA consideration. If you have time, please be so kind as to take a look at the article and comment at this Peer Review. Thanks for any assistance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be one I just reverted some childish vandalism on once two years ago. I'm not familiar with the subject at all, but if I get a chance, I'll take a look at the PR or make some edits. Courcelles 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 == ArbCom ==
 In your arbcom candidacy, you wrote the following statements: "If there is no need for privacy, the Committee shouldn't be doing things in private." Could you confirm that there is currently no action taking place on the "Civility enforcement" arbcom case, now frozen for 3 weeks+? If there is action, why is it taking place in private? What is the need for privacy? If you disagree with said privacy, why have you not posted a proposed decision? Thanks. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
+:Really the problem with this case, from everything I've seen, is three drafters who are very busy in real life more than anything privacy related. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 ==Dan Leno==