Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Portal:Cricket
- Neutrality, why you have not seen fit to comment on the matter beyond three lines and multiple reverts, could you explain how this listing is valid? To me, its just your way of getting support you might not receive on WP:RM. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- This is not a requested move! On Requested Moves, one nominates an article to be moved and the old name to be redirected. I want the article to be moved and the redirect to be deleted. So, yes, this nomination is 100 percent valid, and a clear majority of users agree with me. So I'd appreciate it if the unilateral shutdowns (and snide personal attacks like "just your way of getting support you might not receive on WP:RM") stop. --Neutralitytalk 16:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a thought, Neutrality. WP:RM is where the nominator thinks a page should be moved. WP:RFD is where the nominator thinks a redirect should be deleted. WP:VFD is not a catch-all for something you clearly have a bee in your bonnet over. Frankly, on this matter, I find your behaviour almost dictatorial, certainly cabalistic. I'm sorry if what I said before was a personal attack. It most certainly was not intended as such, and I hope you accept my apology. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I can't accept a psudo-apology from someone who calls me—in the same breath—a dictator and cabalist. All I want is for a community debate to occur without a premature shutdown by a handful of users. That doesn't sound so radical to me. Neutralitytalk 16:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I did not call you a cabalist, nor a dictator. I was criticising your behaviour and refusal to talk. Criticism is not the same as a personal attack. My apology stands. Whether you accept it is, frankly, up to you. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- "I find your behaviour almost dictatorial, certainly cabalistic." That's not a criticism, that's an attack. Neutralitytalk 16:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It was not intended as an attack. It was intended as criticism, certainly, but no attack. My apologies if it came across that way. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- As you have not yet replied (you must have seen this), I presume you do not intend to comment. However, I must say I find it extremely coincidental that Snowspinner turned up at the same time as Neutrality made his third revert, not having previously edited the pages... In addition, I would say that I find your use of the vandalism-revision tool completely out of order. This was not vandalism. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- It was not intended as an attack. It was intended as criticism, certainly, but no attack. My apologies if it came across that way. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- "I find your behaviour almost dictatorial, certainly cabalistic." That's not a criticism, that's an attack. Neutralitytalk 16:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I did not call you a cabalist, nor a dictator. I was criticising your behaviour and refusal to talk. Criticism is not the same as a personal attack. My apology stands. Whether you accept it is, frankly, up to you. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I can't accept a psudo-apology from someone who calls me—in the same breath—a dictator and cabalist. All I want is for a community debate to occur without a premature shutdown by a handful of users. That doesn't sound so radical to me. Neutralitytalk 16:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Not only that, yesterday on IRC Neutrality said he'd be ok with the page being on Portal:Cricket so I'm more than surprised that he is continuing this discussion now the page has been moved there, jguk 16:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. I said I wouldn't mind a page renaming, not that I would "be OK with" or support the page. By the way, you have done nothing wrong in this situation. It is SPUI who has, and I have no quarrel with you. Neutralitytalk 16:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a thought, Neutrality. WP:RM is where the nominator thinks a page should be moved. WP:RFD is where the nominator thinks a redirect should be deleted. WP:VFD is not a catch-all for something you clearly have a bee in your bonnet over. Frankly, on this matter, I find your behaviour almost dictatorial, certainly cabalistic. I'm sorry if what I said before was a personal attack. It most certainly was not intended as such, and I hope you accept my apology. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- This is not a requested move! On Requested Moves, one nominates an article to be moved and the old name to be redirected. I want the article to be moved and the redirect to be deleted. So, yes, this nomination is 100 percent valid, and a clear majority of users agree with me. So I'd appreciate it if the unilateral shutdowns (and snide personal attacks like "just your way of getting support you might not receive on WP:RM") stop. --Neutralitytalk 16:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Might I suggest you let this one pass, but note politely to SPUI where you have your disagreements. To put this into perspective, it is one page amongst a million - it's not worth all this. Why not tell SPUI where your problem with him is and ask him to address it (and similarly show willing to address any issues he may have with you)? jguk 17:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Clarification[edit]
May I enquire what is being proposed? Is it intended that Portal: become a new namespace, in which all Wikiportals would be located? If so, I am not opposed - though I might suggest it be called Wikiportal:. Or is there some other intention?--Cyberjunkie 04:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)