This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 30 May 2009 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 36h) to User talk:AGK/Archive/49.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:39, 30 May 2009 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 36h) to User talk:AGK/Archive/49.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."
This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight". |
Li Yong (Tang Dynasty)
Hi, AGK, I saw you delete the meditation pages, but could you temporarily restore the pages? Because an editor rejected to proceed it via the mean of Mediation because s/he thought the matter can be dealt on the RS board or elsewhere. But unfortunately the discussion was halted for Nlu's inactiveness and Mattisse' ArbCom, but the discussion there is very valuable. That is not just a matter of DYK featuring but also whether ancient Chinese sources should be labeled as "primary sources" or "secondary sources". I want to copy-and paste the discussion to the talk page of Li Yong (Tang Dynasty) if you allow me to do so. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The rejected cases are indexed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/41. As for the talk pages, I'm uncomfortable releasing formal mediation proceedings without information as to specifically why access to them is desired; I'd therefore ask that you be more specific as to why you'd like the mediation's talk page restored. AGK 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because if the discussion is just gone, the editors who commented there have to repeat raising the same topic and concerns. Even after Awadewit rejected the request, the discussion between her and others was still going on, and raised various ideas and discussed about where to move the discussion. If you need some agreement from involved editors as to this request, I will ask their opinion that. If they think my request is unnecessary, I would not ask you further on this.--Caspian blue 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm heading out presently and will probably be unable to edit until tomorrow, so I'll look at it then. Thanks for your patience, AGK 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because if the discussion is just gone, the editors who commented there have to repeat raising the same topic and concerns. Even after Awadewit rejected the request, the discussion between her and others was still going on, and raised various ideas and discussed about where to move the discussion. If you need some agreement from involved editors as to this request, I will ask their opinion that. If they think my request is unnecessary, I would not ask you further on this.--Caspian blue 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration request regarding Wowest
I am notifying you of this thread per your request. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)