User talk:Padillah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 02:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online



Archive 1 Archive 2

A last short needed look[edit]

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [1], and consider a final persuasive comment. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

This linked communication will likely be of no help to me[edit]

…in any sense in future, but it comes after seeing this Admin make a comment to another Admin, suggesting that I refused to answer his questions (a repeated claim, repeatedly responded to at the time): [2]

Letting you know, only because it contains statements of great respect for your dedication and ultimate role (please take no offense at statement regarding zero subject expertise). The truth is, apart from you, there was no progress, and there would have been no help at all for this article in the month of this conflict. Thank you, and please, maintain hope for the article, for its best. I am giving it one last effort, but am ready, after this Admin's intervention (and the long history of the other editor's refusal to budge) to leave this article, and even WP, out of exhaustion. Yes, you pried the boulder loose, and it has begun to roll. But with only two persons involved (no other experts recruited), we are likely to end again at an impasse, a 1-to-1 vote, with no others to resolve it. This is not to complain to you—you at least engaged. This is simply to admit I am tired of it all, and I may not last to see a good article here. TY, regardless, however it may end, for your sincere and wise effort. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

closure at Talk:Genesis creation narrative[edit]

I closed it because I (and most of the others, apparently including you) felt that the discussion needed to end. I did not request formal closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Also, the consensus for the change was what was lacking. The majority of participants were opposed to the change. That's a clear consensus, as far as determining whether the discussion should remain open goes. At this point, I'm responding here precisely because I don't want that to continue any further. I don't think anyone who isn't in favor of removing the word wants that. I would appreciate it if you'd move your comments to the inside of the closure tag, so as not to provoke any continuance of the argument. I don't feel comfortable editing your comments myself, unless you specifically tell me it's okay. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I see you just did that. Thank you, I appreciate it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that that discussion (much like this one) is continuing out of, what appears to be, a lack of notice on your part to the fact that no one is, in fact, contradicting you. By announcing "closure" you are putting hand-cuffs on a dead man. Yes, he broke the law but... at this point nobody else cares. The most productive way to "close" a conversation is to simply stop having it. If the other person keeps going then you need to read their reply and respond to it. NOT to what you think it says. I never expressed an opinion one way or the other about the subject other than to ask that the conversation stop since it consisted mostly of people agreeing with each other. There was no argument, there were only people agreeing with each other and not listening to others who were agreeing back. Padillah (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your third opinion welcome here[edit]

I know this is out of your field, but as a layperson, your objectivity and perspective have been welcome in the past. Please see these two sections, and feel free to comment: [3] and [4]. THis is highly technical stuff. I am looking for an opinion from a non-chemist, Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts. The article is in much better shape for your having taken the time. Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)