User talk:NE Ent: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/March. (BOT) |
→Suggestions?: new section |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:I'll note that I'm pretty confident I've never called any Wikipedia editor ''evil;'' it's not consistent with my frame of reference for this place. While obviously I see Wikipedia as a whole "good" -- I wouldn't spent time on it otherwise -- with rare exceptions, I don't consider individual edits or editors as either good or evil. (Those exceptions are matters for WMF referral for addressing by appropriate police authorities, not Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures). <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
:I'll note that I'm pretty confident I've never called any Wikipedia editor ''evil;'' it's not consistent with my frame of reference for this place. While obviously I see Wikipedia as a whole "good" -- I wouldn't spent time on it otherwise -- with rare exceptions, I don't consider individual edits or editors as either good or evil. (Those exceptions are matters for WMF referral for addressing by appropriate police authorities, not Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures). <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Suggestions? == |
|||
Hi Ent. I saw your comment at [[WT:Blocking policy]] - ''Do I care about a rogue, non-communicative, on the road to dictatorship committee?'' Now, I hope it's obvious that no one wants that, but I will just state here and now that ''I'' personally, really don't want that. When I ran for Arbcom, I was concerned about it's actions - indeed, it was the largest reason I ran. I hope you can believe me when I say I am pushing for transparency, whilst also attempting to find my feet in an area I have limited experience. |
|||
I'm happy to discuss any decisions the committee has made, but I would be more interested in any suggestions on how we can get off the road that you see us walking down. Change takes time, but I have some plans of changes I hope to implement when things have calmed slightly. I'd really like to hear if you have any other ideas. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:37, 11 March 2013
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond to it on this same page as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, I'll look for a response there. But you're welcome to follow any style you prefer. Thank you!
Last word: Worm That Turned (talk).
Odd non-revert
Would you care to explain this? I mean, other than your desire to stick it to the evil Arbitrators, I very much fail to understand how reverting a null edit whose reason to exist was to approve of the edit is useful in any way?
Certainly you wouldn't have reverted me without even taking the time to actually look at what you reverted? — Coren (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're correct; the intent isn't clear. My goal wasn't to "revert you" it was to perform a null edit to add my speechifying to yours, and reverting the space you inserted or removed was the quickest way to that goal. I'll be more careful in the future.
- I'll note that I'm pretty confident I've never called any Wikipedia editor evil; it's not consistent with my frame of reference for this place. While obviously I see Wikipedia as a whole "good" -- I wouldn't spent time on it otherwise -- with rare exceptions, I don't consider individual edits or editors as either good or evil. (Those exceptions are matters for WMF referral for addressing by appropriate police authorities, not Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures). NE Ent 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions?
Hi Ent. I saw your comment at WT:Blocking policy - Do I care about a rogue, non-communicative, on the road to dictatorship committee? Now, I hope it's obvious that no one wants that, but I will just state here and now that I personally, really don't want that. When I ran for Arbcom, I was concerned about it's actions - indeed, it was the largest reason I ran. I hope you can believe me when I say I am pushing for transparency, whilst also attempting to find my feet in an area I have limited experience.
I'm happy to discuss any decisions the committee has made, but I would be more interested in any suggestions on how we can get off the road that you see us walking down. Change takes time, but I have some plans of changes I hope to implement when things have calmed slightly. I'd really like to hear if you have any other ideas. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)