User talk:Tenebrae: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→RFA: reply |
Response to Tenebrae |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
**I respectfully disagree — I think I have a lot to offer if you look at the totality of my Wikiepdia work — and I believe the words "fiasco" and "polluted" are perhaps more loaded than neutral. I fixed my inadvertent guideline mistake so quickly, many users will not have seen it, particularly those outside the U.S. As I said, it's important that this come up on the RfA debate, and I strongly urge you to add my error to the mix. I want to be judged fairly.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
**I respectfully disagree — I think I have a lot to offer if you look at the totality of my Wikiepdia work — and I believe the words "fiasco" and "polluted" are perhaps more loaded than neutral. I fixed my inadvertent guideline mistake so quickly, many users will not have seen it, particularly those outside the U.S. As I said, it's important that this come up on the RfA debate, and I strongly urge you to add my error to the mix. I want to be judged fairly.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***That it was removed does not help the effect on consensus garnering. I think it wonderful that you did remove those canvassing attempts. It speaks volumes of your ability to take criticism and respond appropriately. Finding [[Wikipedia:Canvassing]] on your own was good too. These are ''good'' things. I am not criticizing you for them. The problem is that even in removing the comments, these users will still see a message indicating they have a new message. If they look at the last diff, they will see you removed the comments. So, the consensus garnering field is still polluted by these statements. It'd be best to close this RfA and wait at least a week (but preferably more) and try again, when these comments are not current and the users who were canvassed have an opportunity to see the RfA never went live, so nothing to comment on and they will go about their business. Perhaps you do have a lot to contribute; that's fine. But, there's nothing that says you *must* be an administrator right now that waiting some time won't answer as well. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:29, 15 May 2007
 Archives |
|---|
Please note
Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.
For the most recent postings, through May 15, 2007, please see Archive 5 (at right).
RFA
I think you should go for it. You're a good editor, and frankly, we could use you. Either way, pleasure to be working with ya :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It still has to be transcluded to WP:RFA. Personally, I think you should wait a month after this canvassing fiasco. The field of consensus is polluted. I heartily applaud your efforts at retracting the comments, etc. But, consensus not achievable now, only voting will be served. --Durin 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree — I think I have a lot to offer if you look at the totality of my Wikiepdia work — and I believe the words "fiasco" and "polluted" are perhaps more loaded than neutral. I fixed my inadvertent guideline mistake so quickly, many users will not have seen it, particularly those outside the U.S. As I said, it's important that this come up on the RfA debate, and I strongly urge you to add my error to the mix. I want to be judged fairly.--Tenebrae 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- That it was removed does not help the effect on consensus garnering. I think it wonderful that you did remove those canvassing attempts. It speaks volumes of your ability to take criticism and respond appropriately. Finding Wikipedia:Canvassing on your own was good too. These are good things. I am not criticizing you for them. The problem is that even in removing the comments, these users will still see a message indicating they have a new message. If they look at the last diff, they will see you removed the comments. So, the consensus garnering field is still polluted by these statements. It'd be best to close this RfA and wait at least a week (but preferably more) and try again, when these comments are not current and the users who were canvassed have an opportunity to see the RfA never went live, so nothing to comment on and they will go about their business. Perhaps you do have a lot to contribute; that's fine. But, there's nothing that says you *must* be an administrator right now that waiting some time won't answer as well. --Durin 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree — I think I have a lot to offer if you look at the totality of my Wikiepdia work — and I believe the words "fiasco" and "polluted" are perhaps more loaded than neutral. I fixed my inadvertent guideline mistake so quickly, many users will not have seen it, particularly those outside the U.S. As I said, it's important that this come up on the RfA debate, and I strongly urge you to add my error to the mix. I want to be judged fairly.--Tenebrae 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)