User talk:Polargeo 2/Archives/2010/December
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- The pictures are great. You'll never know how close your guide came to tempting me to stand again just to see what picture you would chose. I'm sure you would have come up with something more imaginative and appropriate than a wolf. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Funny your name just made me think of this image, I read the Silmarillion around 20 years ago and had forgotten the details. Couldn't seem to get Jaberwockey out of my head. The one I would have loved to have done is RogerDavies though. Polargeo (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC) By the way you would have been 3 or 4 stars on my guide and Roger would be a clear 3 stars. Polargeo (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- A link to my guide so that the single talkpage watcher can see what the discussion is about. Polargeo (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. Not sure if you realized, but you accidentally edited one of my templates instead of my actual talk page, so I've reverted it. If you wanted to put it back on my talk page, please feel free. And thanks for the idea ;) Shell babelfish 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a comment about a person, not about the content. Please refactor it and keep your comments focused on the content of the template, not the people who are discussing it. --Elonka 16:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) --Elonka 16:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comment on NW's talk
- yes I've struck it. Polargeo (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Do point me at these hysterics, and I'll administer smelling salts to my fingers. Or give them a good slap or something. I admit sometimes yell at the computer (I've even threatened to drop the office machine out at a window before now, seeing as I'm on the 4th floor), but I don't think I habitually type in that style.
I do find the Wikipedia way faintly ridiculous (event occurs, have a huge argument about it, say something must be resolved, promptly forget about it, event occurs, have the same huge argument about it and try to cite the previous argument as some kind of policy, say something must be resolved, actively oppose the group with a resolve proposal, forget about it, event occurs, have the same huge argument, point to the fact that this is the third year this has occured so there is a tradition of doing it this way, etc etc), but those who are convinced that no rules can ever work at the moment have 'the upper hand'.
Mind, constitutional crises are never as serious as people think they are. When big Liz pops her clogs, people will have forgotten that nasty bit of spitefulness and will refer to Queen Camilla and the world really won't fall in. So this will probably blow over until the next time, given that Jimbo isn't deleting images or issuing unreasonable blocks. He walked right into it though. Could have avoided all the willy-waving though, with a simple "to be listed, candidates must confirm that they agree to abide by the requirements..... Failure to abide will result in disqualification." The requirements can change, but it's pretty clear that for this year 'candidates must disclose all alternate accounts', 'candidates must be full age' and 'candidates must disclose identity to wMf' are all requirements. On that basis, Loosemark gets the heaveho (what would have happened if the community hadn't banned him?) and Giano should never have been allowed to stand in the first place.
- Hi Elen. I think you are a cert for arbcom and I will not be at all disappointed if/when you are elected. I think I was more concerned that you should not get involved in the dismissal of other candidates, no matter how justified you think this is you are a candidate yourself and in my view you should be above the fray and concentrate on your own campaign. I think that is an important thing to balance as an arb, who ultimately has to make a ruling on events and has to avoid being drawn into things unnecessarily. As you can see Giano and Loosmark both got one star from me (or strong oppose). Polargeo (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are right. I have tried to be clear that my concern is with the procedure (which breaches one of the first rules of customer service - if the answer is no, tell the customer up front that they're not going to get what they want), not the candidates, but on the whole it would have been better to stay out of the argument, 'cos it aint gonna go anywhere at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations (although, as with everyone I'm thanking, I didn't agree with all of them). I'll be taking your input into account as I continue to serve over the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
||The Surreal Barnstar|
|For a graphic, humorous and quite 'out there' election guide.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)|