User talk:Veesicle

Archives 01·02

Please edit below this line Thanks! User:Veesicle 17:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Hi Veesicle- just want to request that you consider rephrasing your position on VanTucky's RfA discussion. K. Scott Bailey is irrelevant to VT's qualifications, and in my opinion your comment will only serve to perpetuate a counterproductive side-discussion that is winding down of its own accord. Thanks, -Pete 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC) You are correct, sorry for the trouble. User:Veesicle 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Hello If I in some way offended you, or one of your friends, during my discussions of this RfA, I apologize. I am glad that you did not hold it against VT, though, as he is a great editor. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) No apology needed, I'm not offended, just a bit tired of seeing you pop up everywhere claiming that everyone's arguments are invalid. User:Veesicle 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I have been considering "retiring" from RfA, as I think that my good-faith attempts to defend good candidates' records has been counterproductive. Thanks for your criticism, even though it was worded a bit roughly at the RfA, I accept it, and will consider changing my focus from the promotion of good admins at RfA to some other venue. Thanks again, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Maybe you don't realise, but when you are as combatative as you are it tends to be more of a detriment to RfAs than a help. User:Veesicle 07:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)