GordonWatts
---- - Welcome to my page: - ----
- Archives
- Archive 1:The approximately 66 kb archive of my first talk page.
- Archive 2:The 2nd archive of my first talk page is of unknown length, since the edit dialogue doesn't tell me the KB length, but it appears smaller than the 66 kb 1st archive.
- Archive 3:The 3rd archive of unknown length.
Welcome to my talk page
Please be aware that I may -or may not -check my page for messages. Email is an alternate, but not totally reliable, method of contact. Of course, more conventional methods of communication also exist, such as telephone calls, U.S. postal mail, visits, FAX transmissions, and the like. To my global neighbors, thank you for visiting, even if we have some disagreements on occasion. Take care,
--GordonWattsDotCom 11:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
For additional contact data, please see User:GordonWattsDotCom#Contact_Info.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Just an fyi
Just an fyi on why I deleted your post to the talk page of the article about Jimmy... he specifically asks at the top of page that notes address to him go to his talk page. Not worry too much if he ignores your comment, he does that to a lot of people - there are a lot of disputes out there! Pcb21| Pete 09:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- No sweat -I just figured that two places get more exposure to the powers-that-be.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Continuation of Signpost discussion.
Regarding my name: Just a random concidence, I guess...I've had this username for at least 4 years before even coming to Wikipedia. Ral315 13:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
My Request for Adminship (RfA)
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom --GordonWattsDotCom 15:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Your RFA
Gordon, I will block you if you cause disruption at the RFA page. Don't change people's effort to format the page properly. My strong advice to you is to remove the nomination, but in any event, no more disruption, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- The correct format is the way everyone else is doing it. Post underneath the comment you want to respond to with the numbers sign plus an indent like this #: However, I'd advise against this as it's considered bad form to do it as often as you're doing (in fact, it might be best not to do it at all), and also because a bureaucrat has removed the nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that you just stop my friend, you are hurting yourself more each time you reply on there. --Terry 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since every user is, in theory, supposed to be mature enough to handle admin tools, and such, I did what I felt was right to help equip myself to better help the community; Yes, you're right, it isn't going well, but I'm not an admin or beaurocrat in charge of this, so I shall let them act as they see fit, and it shall be their right -and responsibility. I have done my part to contribute -I, however, can not do other peoples' jobs; I figured an experienced editors like myself with barn stars of recognition would be good enough -since that policy I've seen somewhere says "any" wikipedia should be mature enough, but obviously not. So, I will let the process do it's thing: I have done my part to contribute to my community. Thank you for your concern, Terry.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Gordon, you're reacting to people's criticisms of you in a very bad way. As I said on the RfA, they aren't making personal attacks, but rather criticizing you as a candidate. You opened yourself up to this criticism by making the nomination in the first place. It's considered poor form to rebut every single oppose vote. I strongly suggest withdrawing the nomination, Gordon. At this point it would take thirty-odd support votes for you to have a chance at getting promoted. Sorry it worked out like this. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You've got my vote. patsw 02:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Truth, Verifiability, Age, And stress. Reverse order.
Thank you for your concern, but I'm not feeling any stress currently. I don't believe that you responded to the 15 year old adminstrator noting his age and your belief he was in high school, along with your age and your colledge education to clear the air. I don't believe anyone else does either. The key thing I was discussing with respect to Verfiability and Truth was your lack of adherence to Wikipedia:Verifiability. It dosen't matter if you're right - it matters if you can verify your statement. For instance - "GordonWatts is a really great guy" is not verifiable (neither is "GordonWatts is an evil man"), while "Lary King said that GordonWatts was a 'great guy' on 9/21/05," is.
I look forward to supporting a future RFA of yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)