This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. If you wish to bring up something that is on this page, copy the text to my user talk page and add your comment. Thank you. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Your statement on my talk page reads much like an accusation ("I can understand not wanting to deal with it, but let's be honest with the readers"). I made that edit in April 2005 before I was made a bureaucrat. In fact, the function wasn't even available until July, at which time I specifically advertised it, and have since used it. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
SE Wikt[change source]
Netoholic block[change source]
I have blocked Netoholic for 24 hours for being so rude to you, and removing references to Simple Wiktionary despite community consensus. He has provided no reasonable explanation to his behaviour, so I have been left with no choice. Archer7 | talk 09:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's time we just left Netoholic until he gives his side of the story. It's best leaving it to the community - all three of us are angry and ready to snap at each other. The rest of the community can look closely at the situation without being biased. Remember that it is hard to convey emotion in a written (or typed) conversation. Perhaps some of Netoholic's comments were not intended to be rude. Archer7 | talk 13:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
English Wikipedia policy application[change source]
I find it thoroughly insulting that you did this. You do not get to promote things to policy because:
- Your proposal is a "meta-policy" that we do not need. Policy should spring naturally out of common sense, not be constructed.
- You failed to advertise your policy proposal (Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:English Wikipedia policy application) at all.
- Even though I recently voiced an objection, you promoted anyway five hours later.
- You made up arbitrary "promotion criteria" on Wikipedia talk:English Wikipedia policy application.
- You didn't even follow your OWN criteria, since only five users (not 10) commented in any way on it.
I'm going to go ahead and delete that page in a while. I am tempted to block you for being so presumptive and obviously out-of-touch with what constitutes consensus. Perhaps this warning is enough. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind the idea of using EN polices as a backup, but I also don't want to be completely locked into it either. I've incorporated the idea right into the Wikipedia:Rules pages. I don't see any need for this idea to be a separate topic, and so I'm going to delete the "English Wikipedia policy application" page, just for tidiness. -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits[change source]
I think I've consistently supported your endevours to save and integrate SE Wikt, etc., so I hope you can take this in the constructive way it is meant. I really don't understand why you've returned with an edit pattern that could be seen as poking the bear. Netoholic very specifically cited your extremely high policy/guideline- to content-editing ratio as what had most gotten his goat, yet after a few weeks mostly away you return and go on a 41 edit spree, exactly ONE of which was to an article. It comes across like you're giving Net the finger, and not like flipping someone off when driving by in a car, but up close and personal with your finger waggling within inches of Net's nose. Seriously. Regardless of intentions, under the circumstances I can't think of anything more provocative you could have done. 'You can catch more flies with honey...', etc. Freshstart 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Discussing potential changes on Simple talk and/or with specific active users before implementing them would probably help. I have had several conversations with Net about various topics over the past two years on EN, and have seen Net's activity here on a near daily (for my part, anyway) basis for over six months, so I probably have more insight regarding Net's opinions than most people here, so I might be able to provide some useful feedback/input from that standpoint.
- However, when I started thinking more about who would be best for you to bounce ideas on rules/policies/guidelines/processes off of, I realized that none of the most active contributors have really been very active in pursuing those sorts of things. I got us connected to the CommonsTicker, but that was using an existing process to access an already-active, largely external, tool, not creating any new policies/processes/etc. Eptalon made a proposal as a response to the flap involving Archer7's block of Net, similar to some related comments Archer7 made, but otherwise hasn't seemed to indicate much interest in changing or adding rules/policies/guidelines/processes. Months ago Archer7 started the 'project direction' discussion, but that was far from proposing any specific policies/processes/etc., and seemed to fade away when people realized just how divided the participants are regarding what should be included, etc. More recently Archer7 has spearheaded the drive to get CheckUser abilities for locally active admins so we don't have to rely on people only active on EN and elsewhere, but again that is using existing processes and policies--not creating or changing them. Archer7 has volunteered to be the local 'abuse report' contact, but that's based on processes defined elsewhere, and he hasn't indicated he feels a need for codifying here for it to be implemented. Given all that, most of the active editors here seem to be more-or-less satisfied with the status quo when it comes to rules/policies/guidelines/processes. I think another part of Net's pique/exasperation/whateveryouwanttocallit with you is, um, well, the conundrum, for lack of a better word, of why a less frequent editor seems to see so many back-end things that need to be "fixed", while the more active editors for the most part act like they believe they have everything they need to build the 'pedia. Freshstart 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)