| Revision as of 08:37, 29 May 2009 editHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Fleischmann: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:51, 29 May 2009 edit undoVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits →Fleischmann: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Your removal of without comment is an acknowledgement that the warning has arrived, but it makes it hard to know whether you now understand the issue. Consensus can change, but this non-issue discussed extensively and you simply reheated an old red herring. It's hard to see this on the Fleischmann talk page because Abd was a bit hyperactive there, but quite a few people from outside the cold fusion war were involved in resolving this, including several admins and at some point Arbcom member ]. Guy, who I believe first started this, made some accusations in public (and more to me in private email), but never substantiated them; so they were properly discarded. The thread where John Vandenberg finally resolved the question is at ]. --] (]) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | Your removal of without comment is an acknowledgement that the warning has arrived, but it makes it hard to know whether you now understand the issue. Consensus can change, but this non-issue discussed extensively and you simply reheated an old red herring. It's hard to see this on the Fleischmann talk page because Abd was a bit hyperactive there, but quite a few people from outside the cold fusion war were involved in resolving this, including several admins and at some point Arbcom member ]. Guy, who I believe first started this, made some accusations in public (and more to me in private email), but never substantiated them; so they were properly discarded. The thread where John Vandenberg finally resolved the question is at ]. --] (]) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : My quick reading seemed to suggest that Abd suffocated the issue (hyperactive, as you say! He's been admonished for this by ArbCom, but does persist). The removal was meant as an acknowledgement. My initial removal was to do with a change of policy, but I believe it has been changed back. I think this site is not a good source, and I find it had to credit such a website with copyright permission. If they were to publish their permission on their website that would satisfy me, but Jed's word is not an RS! I believe that consensus in that discussion may not represent true[REDACTED] consensus, but without being involved it's hard to judge. The current status seems to be a fudge. It's not at all high on my list of priorities to sort this out though. Yours, ] <small>]</small> 12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:51, 29 May 2009
Tempur-Pedic
Hello. The Popular Culture section of Tempur-Pedic was deleted last month, with a comment that the popular culture was trivial. As this brand is often referenced, usually as a parody of their commercials, I believe it is relevant to include this as part of the entry. I've modified the section to only include non-promotional mentions regarding the popularity of that wine glass test commercial, and userfy'd the rewrite in my sandbox. Editors have approved the new version. Thank you for bringing it to my attention Jilliant (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree
I was chiefly responsible for this case, and I'm also concerned. The concept was to give him another chance under well-defined conditions. But Guido doesn't seem to have grasped that his community ban was for very real disruption. I'm closely watching this; I hope he moves on very soon. Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks! I hope I haven't made things worse, as I'd like to see things like this work. In WP it seems if something fails once it is banned for all time, and I have a bad feeling about this as a test case. Best, Verbal chat 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like the theory. I think clear limits would help many banned users. I hope it works out. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ping
You have mail :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't reply? I'm seeing other, similar, problems and it's a shame. I wasn't aware of that one, and it sees to be a hard problem. Verbal chat 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesome-
ness. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Never seen that before. Cheers, Verbal chat 21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Notable
Hi Verbal, Smith is plenty notable (as the creator of the 5-point protocol used in Acupuncture detoxification), easily meeting WP:N, and I'll write up a stub for him sometime. I discussed this with our mutual friend User:BullRangifer, but not on the article's talk page, which would've been the best place. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy of the "Enemies List"
Thanks for tagging that for SD. I was hesitant to do so because it was in userspace and it was just a list... but I think you were right to tag it. Vicenarian 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Fleischmann
Your removal of this without comment is an acknowledgement that the warning has arrived, but it makes it hard to know whether you now understand the issue. Consensus can change, but this non-issue discussed extensively and you simply reheated an old red herring. It's hard to see this on the Fleischmann talk page because Abd was a bit hyperactive there, but quite a few people from outside the cold fusion war were involved in resolving this, including several admins and at some point Arbcom member John Vandenberg. Guy, who I believe first started this, made some accusations in public (and more to me in private email), but never substantiated them; so they were properly discarded. The thread where John Vandenberg finally resolved the question is at Talk:Martin Fleischmann#Status of link in article after this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- My quick reading seemed to suggest that Abd suffocated the issue (hyperactive, as you say! He's been admonished for this by ArbCom, but does persist). The removal was meant as an acknowledgement. My initial removal was to do with a change of policy, but I believe it has been changed back. I think this site is not a good source, and I find it had to credit such a website with copyright permission. If they were to publish their permission on their website that would satisfy me, but Jed's word is not an RS! I believe that consensus in that discussion may not represent true[REDACTED] consensus, but without being involved it's hard to judge. The current status seems to be a fudge. It's not at all high on my list of priorities to sort this out though. Yours, Verbal chat 12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)