User talk:Moe Epsilon: Difference between revisions
Colour |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He ''shouldn't'' have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He ''shouldn't'' have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuettarda&diff=84142282&oldid=84120650 This] is the kind of behaviour you are defending? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Colour == |
== Colour == |
Revision as of 01:03, 28 October 2006
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
RFAMoe, It doesn't matter. I'll nominate you as a New Year gift on 2007. Stay surprised! PS. I'd like to be more active on the community side of things after being mainly concerned with article and maintainence. What do you think is a good start, a good way to engage actively in discussions?? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) MetsNo, he hasn't admitted his mistake. And that's the problem. He insists that it was nothing more than an difference of opinion, and that there is no reason why he should listen to someone who is "just his equal". He has a string of egregious actions
He is clearly unsuited to be an admin. His actions violate policy, they violate community norms. A new admin is likely to be ignorant of these things - which is why you need to find things out before you act. Irresponsible admins act first and figure things out later. It isn't good, but there are lots of people who work like that. That's still ok, if you are willing to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Mets has done nothing of the sort, and based on his latest email, to which I was responding, he has no intention of doing anything of the sort. I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He shouldn't have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. Guettarda 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) This is the kind of behaviour you are defending? Guettarda 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) ColourNice design, but...is there any chance you could make the background slightly lighter, so that the text is readable on most screens? colr.org is a good site for colour codes. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |