Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (2): Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (2)
More actions
Steelviper (talk | contribs) + RFA thoughts |
m Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus" |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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) | 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: | :Can you elaborate? This is not obvious to me. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 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) | :: 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) | :::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) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
I consider the vote/comments by RachelFaith nothing more than vandalism and should be removed ASAP.--gougef 23:06, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
- Can you elaborate? This is not obvious to me. --April Arcus 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 Merovingian down. Apparently I am the only one that feels this way so ignore my request. --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. --Steelviper 12:03, 12 June 2006 (CDT)