| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| I consider the vote/comments by [[User:RachelFaith]] nothing more than vandalism and should be removed ASAP.--[[User:Gougef|gougef]] 23:06, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | | I consider the vote/comments by [[RachelFaith]] nothing more than vandalism and should be removed ASAP.--[[User:Gougef|gougef]] 23:06, 11 June 2006 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :Can you elaborate? This is not obvious to me. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 11:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT) | | :Can you elaborate? This is not obvious to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT) |
| | |
| :: Is she really serious? It just seems facetious and making a joke of the process. Is she just that way? I guess that I did overact, but it seems the positive vote was a a subversive way to put [[User:The Merovingian | Merovingian]] down. Apparently I am the only one that feels this way so ignore my request. --[[User:Gougef|gougef]] 11:53, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I took her vote to be in good faith, and actually it's a shining example of what a "vote" should be in this process. Some people on Wikipedia chime in with their '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' (or even '''Neutral''', which makes no sense) with no comment. That really doesn't add NEARLY as much value to the process as if you explain some of your reasoning, as she did. If Merv objects to her post as a personal attack, I might see something, but I didn't read it that way. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:03, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
| |
