User talk:PBeaver

Nice to meet you.

I look forward to your continued cooperation in the future.

°≈≠±−×÷←→·§–—… α β γ δ ε η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω --PBeaver 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: There seems to be a problem.

The template meant to say to use that thing instead of the vertical pipe when doing piped linking. Otherwise, you use the vertical pipe. I've fixed the template to make it more specific. MessedRocker (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

"This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia" is not appropriate text on a page that is not, or not yet, considered a guideline on Wikipedia, nor is the Category:Wikipedia guidelines. {{proposed}} is traditionally replaced by {{guideline}} (and so forth) if and when it becomes clear that consensus supports it. >Radiant< 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Accountability

Wikipedia:Accountability has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The palava around Wikipedia:Accountability

PBeaver, I'm sure your intentions are good, but the people telling you that you're not going about things the right way simply aren't vandals. It's not acceptable behaviour to keep saying that they are. People are trying to tell you about the way en.wikipedia is run, and it's simply not reasonable to turn up and start saying that it's run incorrectly and that what you say is obviously more sensible.

No insult to you is meant, certainly by me, but continuing to refer to established editors, and even respected admins, as vandals is likely to end you up in trouble. Is your accountability proposal intended to actually change any behaviour on wikipedia, and/or to make something that is currently done "not allowed"? Is it meant to increase understanding of existing guidelines and policies? I'd really like to help you to reach a reasonable conclusion.

In the meantime, please do contribute to the improvement and development of wikipedia articles, as that's always the most important thing! Have a good day, SamBC(talk) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]