User talk:Kim Bruning

Hello! Note that I am away. Please append your message at the end of the page, though I can't promise I'll do anything about it atm.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Discussion on Jimbos page

I am awake and waiting for your counterarguments. Prandr 11:09 CEST, 14 May 2007

Super datatool!!!

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptautoren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

Governance reform and AGF challenge

Hi! I've been reading through some of your comments on WT:Governance reform. I find hard rules and binding decisions as appealing as the next person, but I also find your arguments very compelling.

Working within a corporate hierarchy, I see first-hand the tension between being bold to get things done, and waiting for the formal decision-making process to complete. When I do employee performance reviews there are usually questions on the form about display of management skills. Non-manager employees almost always skip these questions on the grounds that they simply have zero opportunity to exercise management skills. I tell them that the true test of management skills is exercising influence over others when you don't have a manager title, or when they don't report to you. I guess this corresponds to building consensus.

I followed the link to WP:Lectures, and I'm sorry to find that I missed the session on Fill's AGF challenge. I'm sure that you're really busy, but I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on my answers. Cheers, Bovlb (talk)

Happy Holidays

and Merry Christmas to you, you heathen bast... I mean, you consensus loving wonderful individual, you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Kim Bruning,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPISODE

I reverted your change. There was no consensus for anything in that discussion. A couple people voiced their support and their opposition, while others just talking about where they would like the page to go once WP:FICT becomes official. When there is no consensus, the page reverts back to its normal existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Happy new year, Kim! I thought you might want to know about this proposal, which is being voted on (rather than being discussed), and the gist of which is to make certain important decisions on Wikipedia not based on Consensus, but strictly on a headcount of the amount of people supporting the decision, regardless of how many people are opposed to it. Thought you might want to know. Cheerio, >Radiant< 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]