Tao2911
Here's ma talk, ya'll. Use it, don't abuse it. : )
A special barnstar for you
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Well done Tao for your indomitable persistence and final success achieving GA status for Adi Da - Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Suspicion of sockpuppetry
Hi Tao, I found the closed case on my return from vacation. I think the reason you gave for drawing me into this cause, i.e. the number of my edits, was a little bit on the weak side. Another time, please look at the content of the edits, instead of simply counting them. No hard feelings nevertheless ! Cheers, Racconish Tk 09:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Racconish- sorry about that. As I'm sure you noticed, this case was messy, with at least four editors adding names and IP's to that list, casting a wide net and scooping up a number of socks and/or meats. I didn't think you were a sock per se, but I did look at some of your edits and your page and thought there was at least a possibility of collusion, especially considering how very many ID's were involved, and how the page even as you were editing was patently promotional. Sorry to mis-take you if I did. Cheers!Tao2911 (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you did ! But I forgive you. Happy editing, Racconish Tk 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I probably should have spoken up sooner. Racconish is anonymous like most of the rest of us but I'm sufficiently familiar with this editor's contributions over many months to be convinced beyond any doubt that there is no possibility whatsoever that he or she socks or meats for anyone. This is a smart, nice, constructive person who, in my experience, demonstrates both good faith and good acts, helping to build a better encyclopedia. I have never seen Racconish display a personal agenda. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Heartfelt thanks ! Racconish Tk 16:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I probably should have spoken up sooner. Racconish is anonymous like most of the rest of us but I'm sufficiently familiar with this editor's contributions over many months to be convinced beyond any doubt that there is no possibility whatsoever that he or she socks or meats for anyone. This is a smart, nice, constructive person who, in my experience, demonstrates both good faith and good acts, helping to build a better encyclopedia. I have never seen Racconish display a personal agenda. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you did ! But I forgive you. Happy editing, Racconish Tk 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
AfD
We've won and we should be good winners. A weak keep when all the other votes are deletes is still only a single weak keep. Even Jesanj has thrown in the towel. I think we should avoid looking shrill and leave others room to offer minority opinions without dissecting every one of them. Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- sure, point taken.Tao2911 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
An example
FYI, I think you take too hard of a line sometimes. At the recent discussion debate for Marisol Deluna you claimed "other editors here have clearly shown [the NYT wedding announcement] to not be a valid source", which completely disregards my "no it's OK because it meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB" argument that I've made in a couple places. Now others have repeated this argument. It seems sometimes you don't listen. Please listen and consider the reasoned arguments of others. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- this kind of commentary really serves no purpose. It's basically just an insult ("you don't listen.") the fact is actually I just don't agree. And another editor I feel slam dunked the argument against using the source beyond even my points. If other editors agree with our assessment, I don't think that means I apologize to you. Keep making your points and keep on the topic. Cheers and happy editingTao2911 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC).