User talk:Thatcher

From Jacurek - retrieved from the archives ( I'm still preparing an answer, would like to keep this open, thank you Thatcher)

I was thinking about it a lot if I should even confront you with this question... simply because I think that overall, you have made a right decision placing both sides on notice not just one and in general you are always quite fair and I respect you. But.... do you really think that my one revert [[1]] with this comment attached to it: - it may still have to be here. We do not know yet. Please wait for others to discuss it and then we will all make a right decision. I'm sure we can come to the agreement. Thanks - versus 26 edits on the articles talk page at the same period of time[[2]] (please also check what I had to say there) justifies your decision to place me an warning as well? I realize that you will answer with some examples of other pages regarding EE I have edited/reverted in the past to justify your decision or you will ask me to appeal. This is natural and anybody would do it. There is always something one can find for somebody if one really wants too, I have learned that already. I also would like to point out that I will not appeal your decision. Why? Simply because I'm sure I will not do anything wrong in the future for that warming to take effect unless somebody will "come after me" and use the fact that I'm on that list against me. Not that long ago I went through such situation. This is my only concern. But what I also think is that I should not be on that list for making ONE careful revert with polite explanations why I'm doing it. I'm shaking my head with disbelieve...Thanks Thatcher and I hope you don't mind this little criticism but I had to ask you because the whole incident just "blows my mind" Remember, we are all humans and we all make mistakes...even administrators do. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, I did not hear from you but I understand that you are busy being an administrator and all. When you get a chance could you honestly answer my question. This is very important to me. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got a couple of 3RR reports, and been involved in several Enforcement complaints as a party or a commentator. Is there some reason you should not be officially "notified" of the existence of the remedies in the Digwuren case? No actual sanctions or restrictions have been applied at this time. Regarding the content dispute, you may be interested in my comments to Skapperod of 13:20, 2 July 2009 above on this page. It is important, as a matter of respect, I think, that when there is a discussion on the talk page, no one should be reverting either way, as it undercuts the discussion; what is the point of a polite discussion if the reverting goes on at the same time? I think it is also important to be aware of editorial factions. Your reversion, if it had been done by Loosmark instead, would have been his 4th revert. This may have been collusion or coincidence, it is not particularly important which. But is does point to the fact that you are involved in the dispute and should be put on formal notice in the event that future Enforcement requests are made. Hopefully, of course, there won't be and future reports. Thatcher 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

76.203.0.0/17

I recently created an account Egogames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which bypasses your range block of 76.203.0.0/17. I intend to closely monitor this account, but would appreciate, by Wikipedia mail, any information you remember regarding the problem which resulted in the rangeblock. Fred Talk 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)