User talk:Altenmann/ar1: Difference between revisions
→Your Weak Oppositions to RfAs: further |
rv wikilawyering |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Hi. I got your note. Apparently it isn't OK to link article pages with project pages. I would just like to know weather the content of [[Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story]] would now be good enough to be published as an article. I've attempted to do so once before but at the time there was much less information on the subject and the movie wasn't as well known. Thank you for your time. [[User:U5K0|U5K0]] 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I got your note. Apparently it isn't OK to link article pages with project pages. I would just like to know weather the content of [[Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story]] would now be good enough to be published as an article. I've attempted to do so once before but at the time there was much less information on the subject and the movie wasn't as well known. Thank you for your time. [[User:U5K0|U5K0]] 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Your Weak Oppositions to RfAs == |
|||
You have opposed EVERY RfA you have bothered to comment on, nearly all with the specious reasoning "we don't need professional police here" or some variant. This demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what WP is. It is BOTH an encyclopedia AND a community of editors. Some are here for the good of the project, and some are not. As such, we DO need people who know policy inside and out ("police" as you pejoratively and in bad faith refer to them) as they keep the unruly editors in line. You would do well to reconsider your blanket opposes, as we need more good peple with the mop--and yes, more "police" your opinion notwithstanding. [[User:Kscottbailey|K. Scott Bailey]] 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Would you please more distinctly define what your RfA standards are? As with K. Scott Bailey, I find your rationale to be exceedingly weak, and it does the candidates you oppose no good to give them weak feedback; if they don't know what exactly they need to focus their attentions on, how are they expected to improve themselves? [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Further to the above you oppose at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Accounting4Taste]] is actually totally inaccurate. You stated that 90% of the candidates work was "greeting users". I have responded at the RfA illustrating in hard facts that this figure is totally wrong. I'd urge you to reconsider your opposition comments on the current RfA's. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:26, 30 October 2007
|
Any messages left here will probably not be unanswered. Article content is to be discussed on article talk pages (You may invite me there if you find my input important). |
Please pop over to AVL tree talk page - re "Explanation". Toby Douglass 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story
Hi. I got your note. Apparently it isn't OK to link article pages with project pages. I would just like to know weather the content of Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story would now be good enough to be published as an article. I've attempted to do so once before but at the time there was much less information on the subject and the movie wasn't as well known. Thank you for your time. U5K0 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)