Contents

Re: C68-FM-SV/Workshop

I think I understand - of course a moderate approach to matters is usually recommended and it's mostly down to common sense. After all, policy is written by editors like us and so isn't infallible. In this case it's really up to interpretation of the evidence as to whether lines have been crossed as regards the minimum standards we expect from administrators; policy is there as a guidance for editors to help them stay on the correct side of that line.

I apologise if I came across as a little confrontational - I'm unused to getting involved in such polarised disputes and I recognise now how it's far too easy to accidentally misinterpret things and see everyone as disagreeing with you, whilst simultaneously pushing too far beyond your position, expecting people to lean back against you (a striking comparison to the case, in fact).

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. I know from experience many people ignore IP editors and it's always gratifying to find people who don't treat those of us who choose not to have accounts as second class citizens. Yours, --129.67.162.133 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. As regards IP: I see what you mean. Given what background research I've done on this case I'm entirely unsurprised that people would not want to reveal themselves when getting involved, given the apparent potential for backlash. I'm not experienced in the sense of having an account (though I've edited WP for years in various areas), and normally I'd avoid politics. I'm only involving myself in this case because I have encountered a number of the involved editors before on various pages over the years, and because I can see this having fundamental implications for policy in the future provided Arbcom actually makes definitive findings and rulings regarding this. Perhaps I'm a closet metapedian, eh?

I'm sure this case will turn out to be very interesting. Let's enjoy the ride. :) --129.67.162.133 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day dorf....

hope you're good.. I wondered if I might bug you for a bit of advice / help?

I'm currently recording brief conversations with each of the candidates in the board elections which just started, and I wondered if you might have any ideas or time to help out making a suitable 'episode' page for them - p'raps some way of splitting the page up so the potential listener can just quickly hear the interview they're interested in? - let me know if you've got a mo, and are interested! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it right away. dorftrottel (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

How is this guy perfect? :D Enigma ^message 06:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't. He's an ass for stealing my idea long before it ever occured to me... dorftrottel (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenocidic RfA

Hi, it appears you have voted in support (#46) and in oppose (#8) at the above RfA. Regards, EJF (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the note. dorftrottel (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=NTWPW waaaa

hmmm xD,, What im I going to--·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^†дŀќ 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? :) Not such a biggie, I suppose. dorftrottel (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

** /me has an idea ** brb. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about my error :> I added this to all of the talk pages.

Hi there, I would just like to point out that this is a slight error, Although the page has now been created ready for the sound files the sounds are not currently there and all link to episode 16. Sorry for this message, I will resend a remind once the files are confirmed and uploaded. Thanks. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for telling me ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA conduct

Can you please cool your jets on DHMO's RFA? Your comments are becoming unconstructive and abrasive. Thank you, Lara❤Love 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dorftrottel