User talk:Grace Note: Difference between revisions

For comments or votes to matter on a wikipedia:Requested move the votes and comments must be placed on the talk page of the page to be moved. Please move the votes and comments you placed on WP:RM onto the appropriate talk pages. Philip Baird Shearer 15:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis never protected Enviroknot's userpage: see [1]. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I think you may find this useful: a mailing list post by David Gerard going into more detail regarding the results of his IP check on Enviroknot/ElKabong/KaintheScion. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 21:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Further conversation there seemed out of place. The reason the last attempt at de-adminship went down in flames was the way it was being done. Long story, and it was spread over many pages, just trust me, it was bad. Also, while I do agree there is some merit to having a simple process for de-adminning, upon further review I'm not sure it would be worth the cost. All proposals so far would have resulted in a melee of abuse, hard feelings, and other unproductive edits. There doesn't seem to be a way to allow valid requests for de-adminship and not allow the invalid ones without appearing to be playing favorites. Allowing them all would be a mess and no one would get any work done. The problem is admins stick their necks out and even when following policy and acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, they are of course going to anger those they sanction. So there will always be people willing to harass any de-adminship process. The only legitimate process I see to avoid some of the problems would be to have a discussion every year on every admin to reapply. Those that get at least half supports would stay, those no would lose their admin rights. But that still faces the problem of getting harassed by editors who have been legitimately blocked and banned. Also, for those admins clearly following Wikipedia policy, they would certainly, and rightly be supported by other admins. That would lead to even greater cries of cronyism. If you have a magic system to avoid enough problems that it would be worth the cost let me know. - Taxman ^Talk 17:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I left the response on my talk page for continuity

Hi there! I have no clue why you and Mel Etitis seem to be at each other's throats (figuratively speaking), nor is it really any of my business, but maybe the two of you should consider mediation? Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I saw that you no longer agree to mediation. I hope I didn't drive you off. I believe in the Choir having many voices, even if we sing different parts. And I'd hate to lose someone who sings with compassion. Please let me know your concerns.--ghost 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)

I agree with Ghost, although I couldn't bring the lilting metaphoric entreaty that he does. I read elsewhere that you were concerned about certain partisans getting their way. I can assure you that while we can't do much about their spew, there are a serious handful of us who have been staunch protectionists of keeping the facts in the article (as NPOV as possible) and the conspiracy garbage out. I recall you were an effective partner in that endeavor and I wish you'd come back. So far as the mediation is concerned, I read between the lines (and perhaps inaccurately) that you didn't have confidence in aspects of the process (I needn't elaborate, particluarly if I misinterpreted your thoughts). That's alright; we could still use your input in the article itself and on the talk page. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. I'm at a loss about what to do about this matter.--Onlytofind 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hiya Grace Note, thanks for voting on my RfA! I'm sorry if I worded my explanation a little badly, so let me clarify: Everyking's opposition is to one of my proposals, which was to change the requests for admin procedure into a mentoring system. Everyking didn't like what he saw as a step away from democracy and voting (which I explained was incorrect on the RfA page, as my proposal involves discussion and feedback quite prominently). So the irony is you have opposed due to me not following Everyking's proposal, whereas the one thing Everyking thought I did not follow was his democracy view, which you just said you thought was evil! I hope this clears it up :) Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Hiya, if you're not watching my talk page this is just to let you know I replied. Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Hiya, I replied again. Would you prefer that I replied here? Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Welcome to Tote the Ranks, conscientious objector! :)

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?

- Eleanor Roosevelt

I would like to point out both that the date was 05:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC), and that I apologised to SqueakBox that same day. I'm guessing you also biased that out, huh? Not that I care, though. Happy editing. Kapil 4 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

i want to paddle you and pull down your pants and give it to you in the wanker