User talk:Kim Bruning: Difference between revisions
small addition |
Per request |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
IMHO sentences such as this one shows lack of understanding of the term consensus. If you feel the same you have the chance to educate people at the talk of [[m:No open proxies]]~- check the page history. (I was thinking about doing it myself, but was too lazy. Or something. Besides, I think that of two posts with identical meaning, one signed Kim Bruning and one signed habj, the first one has more weight. FWIW.) // [[User:Habj|habj]] 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) |
IMHO sentences such as this one shows lack of understanding of the term consensus. If you feel the same you have the chance to educate people at the talk of [[m:No open proxies]]~- check the page history. (I was thinking about doing it myself, but was too lazy. Or something. Besides, I think that of two posts with identical meaning, one signed Kim Bruning and one signed habj, the first one has more weight. FWIW.) // [[User:Habj|habj]] 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Per request == |
|||
[[Image:Smiley.svg|100px|left]] — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:51, 19 June 2007
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 2
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 3
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 4
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 5
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 6
- User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 7
- Current status: > regaining energy.
Hello! Please append your message at the end of the page.
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.
Discussion on Jimbos page
I am awake and waiting for your counterarguments. Prandr 11:09 CEST, 14 May 2007
Super datatool!!!
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptautoren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs)
ArmedBlowfish
Hi Kim,
Does your statement on the propriety of ArmedBlowfish's RfA constitute an "official" decision in the matter, or are you expressing a knowledgeable opinion? If your comment isn't definitive, what would be?
One part of your response to the first question bothers me ... "On wikipedia, anything is permitted, as long as [it...] does not damage wikipedia."
My entire point is that it could damage Wikipedia to have a completely anonymous editor free access to edit, on the basis of "trust him." Is it true he would even be protected from legal process? Would that put Wikimedia at risk? -- Cecropia 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would be grateful if you would answer my question, Kim. You wrote a definitive sounding opinion under the rubric of (IIRC) a "Policy Maintainer." Is that an official position? Does your opinion carry official weight? -- Cecropia 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Protection
It probably doesn't, but I haven't seen any other useful suggestions recently. >Radiant< 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yesterday noone could fix it at all either, so I fail to see how this changes anything. >Radiant< 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
#wikipedia-medcab
Could you please give chanop status to Vassyana (talk · contribs), "Vassyana" on IRC? --Ideogram 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Please don't change the policy without consensus"
IMHO sentences such as this one shows lack of understanding of the term consensus. If you feel the same you have the chance to educate people at the talk of m:No open proxies~- check the page history. (I was thinking about doing it myself, but was too lazy. Or something. Besides, I think that of two posts with identical meaning, one signed Kim Bruning and one signed habj, the first one has more weight. FWIW.) // habj 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Per request
