Content deleted Content added
→'''Disputed segments''': don't argue with me |
|||
Line 180:
:::::::What I can do is voice my opinion and if sufficient numbers voice the same opinion a concensus can be reached at which point an admin would be able to step in. So what is your problem exactly? I am one of two people who have voiced that if Danko does not agree to abide by some very clear and simple rules he should be not allowed to contribute. I am voicing my opinion to remind Danko. Your original statement was that I should not "tell any interested participant to go away". Now you have shifted your position to telling me I can't make them go away. I know I can't do the latter but I can do the former, which is why I am doing it. As part of concensus building we have to share our views, don't we? If Danko can demonstrate constructive behavior, I have no problem with him contributing. I have merely made the observation that he has stepped in again and immediately started throwing acusations around, and that given that he can't seem to grasp the idea of constructive discussion, it would be best for him to go. [[User:Dndn1011|Dndn1011]] 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Read [[WP:NPA]]: comment on the content and not the contributor. There is no way an admin is going to step in just because a number of people share your opinion. Don't try to argue with me or imply I have a problem. I am informing you of the rules here at Wikipedia. My two statements are related, in that it is pointless for you to tell him to go away when you can do nothing about it. Again, you are supposed to share your views on the content, not the contributor. You are hardly an objective observer in this debate so no one is going to take your attacks on Danko seriously. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You may need to slow down to let the mediator catch up. [[WP:NEHAMFTAY]]. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||