User talk:D.M.N.: Difference between revisions
The Hybrid (talk | contribs) →RE:Cough: new section |
→On approaching other editors: new section |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Hack, gag, blugh '''<span style="border: 3px #082567 solid;background:#50C878;font-family: Serif">[[User:The Hybrid|<font color="#E0115F">''The Hybrid''</font>]]</span>''' 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Hack, gag, blugh '''<span style="border: 3px #082567 solid;background:#50C878;font-family: Serif">[[User:The Hybrid|<font color="#E0115F">''The Hybrid''</font>]]</span>''' 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== On approaching other editors == |
|||
Since the AN/I thread is closed, I won't comment there, but I have a few thoughts on the way you've approached Tony about your FAC request. |
|||
In your second message to Tony, you took a very accusatory tone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=219070065&oldid=219009846] "Why do you ignore comments on your talkpage? You could at least respond....In my view, it's pure ignorance to ignore others comments.". |
|||
Look at the guy's talk page. It gets a lot of comments. He may not have even seen your initial comment, or he may have intended to respond but been sidetracked by something else. In other words, it may have been a perfectly innocent omissions on his part. When you followed up with an accusation of "ignorance", and also stated – twice – that he was deliberately ignoring you, I can see why he might have decided that you weren't worth responding to. The rudeness was simply uncalled-for, and since he ''is'' a busy editor, your behaviour probably bumped any further requests from you to the bottom of his in-box. |
|||
Meanwhile, you went on to file an AN/I report ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=219693875]) only five minutes after you left a second ''ping'' on his talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=prev&oldid=219693287]). Your comment that you weren't "going to bite [his] head off" didn't exactly ring true, given the previous message that you had left. Going straight to AN/I suggests that you didn't expect him to reply to your comment; that you were just 'going through the motions' rather than acting in good faith. |
|||
Finally, your comment to Tony [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=prev&oldid=219715256 here] wasn't a polite request—it was a threat. ''Pay attention to me or I'll file another report on you!''. Frankly, given your own conduct, if Tony ever chooses to help you it will be because he's a damn good guy; you owe him some serious apologies if you're expecting a response to your queries. You lecturing another editor on etiquette is ''way'' out of line. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:03, 16 June 2008
Archives |
---|
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted | Review it now |
Roswell incident | Review it now |
La Isla Bonita | Review it now |
Unresolved tag
I'm not sure there's a need to mark the ANI thread about SlimVirgin's image uploads as unresolved. Nobody actually disputes my analysis. One individual has proposed a novel line of reasoning that could support my analysis, but in over a day nobody's showed up to oppose it. The thread is likely to be archived soon and I have doubts whether that tag was appropriate. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Shawn Michaels
Well, since the whole controversy with the refs. and stuff, for the FA's, I'm trying to replace them with "reliable" sources. But, I'll make sure to look at the info. carefully and I'll replace Hoffco back at the SS '02 info. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
ANI subpages
About moving those long threads to ANI subpages - I know the header instruction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents does talk about moving long threads to subpages, but not everyone agrees with that practice. I think 50K is a rather arbitrary limit anyway, and it does mess things up when people try and search the archives. My view is that only the very longest threads need moving like that. It is particularly annoying when a thread gets moved when it feels like it is near the end and about to be resolved anyway (I was about to add an addendum to the Kelly block thread to make clear a big part has been resolved). Have a look here for a list of ANI subpages. Finding the "thread subpages" of AN is rather more difficult. See here for what I mean. Both those links should also give you an idea of what sort of threads normally get moved over. Someone could look into archiving those subpages in the proper places (see here and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all), but maybe see how the bot (whichever one is doing the archiving at the moment) handles things. I think it is Miszabot. It is also interesting to see how sometimes creating these subpages has no effect at all on the volume of posting, and at other times it kills it dead! :-) Anyway, this should probably have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but I thought I'd come here first to point out how I personally feel about ANI and AN subpages. Maybe it is time for another discussion about this? What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
RE:Cough
Hack, gag, blugh The Hybrid 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On approaching other editors
Since the AN/I thread is closed, I won't comment there, but I have a few thoughts on the way you've approached Tony about your FAC request.
In your second message to Tony, you took a very accusatory tone: [1] "Why do you ignore comments on your talkpage? You could at least respond....In my view, it's pure ignorance to ignore others comments.".
Look at the guy's talk page. It gets a lot of comments. He may not have even seen your initial comment, or he may have intended to respond but been sidetracked by something else. In other words, it may have been a perfectly innocent omissions on his part. When you followed up with an accusation of "ignorance", and also stated – twice – that he was deliberately ignoring you, I can see why he might have decided that you weren't worth responding to. The rudeness was simply uncalled-for, and since he is a busy editor, your behaviour probably bumped any further requests from you to the bottom of his in-box.
Meanwhile, you went on to file an AN/I report ([2]) only five minutes after you left a second ping on his talk page ([3]). Your comment that you weren't "going to bite [his] head off" didn't exactly ring true, given the previous message that you had left. Going straight to AN/I suggests that you didn't expect him to reply to your comment; that you were just 'going through the motions' rather than acting in good faith.
Finally, your comment to Tony here wasn't a polite request—it was a threat. Pay attention to me or I'll file another report on you!. Frankly, given your own conduct, if Tony ever chooses to help you it will be because he's a damn good guy; you owe him some serious apologies if you're expecting a response to your queries. You lecturing another editor on etiquette is way out of line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)