Davemoth
Welcome edit
|
Closure of the 2020 Dem Primary RfC edit
I made a note on the notice board of your attempt to help close/narrow the issues on the first RfC. I gather you were not trying to resolve the second one, as I have said there. If I have misunderstood, please correct me there. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Darryl Kerrigan Thank you for your comment there. You have gotten my current intentions correct. I might try the same type of thing with the 2nd RfC once the activity has died down (last vote was yesterday). --Davemoth (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Good work, I never should have doubted.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in talk page discussions edit
I am very concerned about the lack of good faith exhibited in this diff. Please be aware that we must always comment on the content, not the contributor and that it’s not constructive to make a heated discussion about how to interpret policy a personal one. Thank you. Samboy (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
A question to confirm my understanding of … edit
the history at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: Iiuc, both parts of the Two-part RfC pertained to a) the individual state pages and b) the main page. That seems to be what your Analysis and Proposed Consensus indicates. Do I understand correctly? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Davemoth, your two cents on this might be quite helpful. There was discussion about how these two RfCs would co-exist, and my memory of this is that there was discussion that the first one would largely apply to the sub-pages and the second to the main page. That is my reading of your comments in the participants' discussion. I don't think that came out of the blue, I believe there was other discussions about that. Unfortunately, this is now more than a bit of a mess given the multiple discussions that have occurred, the time it took to get SpinningSpark's closes, and now the issue of Smith0124 being banned as a sock-puppet after creating several RfCs on the issue and discussions, and participating significantly in them. Anyway, if you have anything which could be of help winding down this tortured affair, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, I hope you are doing well.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)