User talk:Arkon/archive1

To preempt the imminent welcome message, I have been around quite a while. Thanks though :D Arkon 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

In his fit of apparent rage, User:FT2 made the deletion of your post and Peter's I'm sure by accident.--MONGO 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIF

At the WIF article you claim, "all sources I've found show that fatwa to be the founding point for the WIF."

Would you care to share any of your sources?

I just did a google search for the title of the fatwa. Arkon 19:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My hero

You da man, Arkon! Morton devonshire 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly

Oddly enough my vote on arbcom elections is being tossed. At that point I had 139 edits, evidently you need 150. I shall now make sure I have 150, and revote. Arkon 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage for ArbCom election

As much as I would like you to be able to vote, as I agree with your take on Kelly Martin's fitness for duty, you don't have suffrage. It isn't about having 150 votes now; you must have had 150 at 0:00 9 January 2006 (UTC). You didn't. Sorry. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is somewhat ambiguous. So long as you are aware. I wish you luck in making your case to whomever it is that actually decides this sort of thing. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a brief mention of this elsewhere, but I'll expand on it here: You're taking the wrong tack.
We're not about rules here. Even the editors (like myself) who get saddled with the "process wonk" millstone are not (mostly) about rules. We're about common sense, and respect, and honesty. So any appeal to the "rules" or loopholes therin is doomed to fail. Not only to fail, but to rub the stink of "wiki-lawyering" into you to a degree that is darn hard to scrub out.
I know it it's nonsensical in some respects. You're mad about absolute power being unchecked, but find that your actions have highly restrictive limits placed upon them, and you're not even allowed to argue about it. Sort of like the real world, eh?
So, first things first: remember that the power structure here is not monolithic. That means that people probably aren't trying to be perverse. Different laws for every cop so to speak. So don't to shoot too many sparks at people who are trying to do their best. Which is most of them.
Secondly, you want you vote to count, try to make your case simply, disspassionately, and with evidence to support it. Something like, "While I understand that the desire for smoothly running blah blah of the editors without suffrage to date blah blah only three have between 150 and blah blah spirit of the law blah blah." Mostly just normal, common sense straight talk.
And then go and edit some articles. It's great fun, which is why you're here to begin with, right? Come and ask on my talk page, I've got 1000 things to do that will be a hoot. Copy-edit four or five porn articles and you'll be ill with laughter. Or maybe just ill, as actual milage may vary.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Arkon/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Just messing with ya. BlueGoose 08:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon/Rove S&M relationship

Hey I noticed you removed references to Jeff Gannon in Karl Rove's article (I didn't write it). Anyway the guy who wrote it, included like 10 sources, so while maybe the new paragraphs should be trimmed down, there could be some truth to the speculation. Or at least the speculation could be noteworthy in and of itself, even if it's not true.

What do you think?--M4bwav 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]