User talk:Russavia/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Russavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have removed your editing rights as it is evident that you are unable to participate without creating unacceptable levels of disruption. I'm sure you know the drill about appeals and I will also put the block up at ANI for discussion. I'm sure that some kind soul will transfer any comments you might have to that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate; you are talking too much sense. Please stop :) Russavia (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N/A
The second paragraph here only provides ammunition for an otherwise unjustified action. I'd really suggest omitting the latter part of it in the best interest of the project. — C M B J 10:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What part do you think is not in the best interests of this project? Let's discuss, and I'll amend it accordingly. :) Russavia (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the "Jimmy topic ban"? Nah, no need to drop that part, due to NYB all but calling it a Jimmy topic ban. So let's call it what it is. Russavia (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have dropped the part in quotation marks, since it's still most likely just going to rile someone up, but otherwise, cheers. — C M B J 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed most of that, but I am leaving in place my comments that people in authority on this project are clueless on management of human resources, and that this is just another demonstration of how broken this project is. Anyone who doubts this, should look at our falling editor numbers, and shockingly low editorial retention rate. Good? Russavia (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just the fact that generalizations and sarcasm provide ample opportunity to change the subject from legitimate concern to opinion. — C M B J 11:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)