User:Cedar-Guardian/respond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Ambi had wrote:
Oppose. User doesn't seem to have spent much time on Wikipedia, or to be familiar with its practices. He made a complete mess of WP:GO this morning because he'd never seen it before and decided he needed to change its focus, and his creation of this page makes me wonder as well. Again, I'm all for low adminship standards, but when people do strange things like this I'm inclined to believe that they should wait a while and learn how things work around here.
There's three points about what he wrote, I'd like to respond to:
- First, Ambi seems to have missunderstood a lot the change I made to the Goings-on page. This change was made after posting many proposals about this step, but the only time I got a response is from User:JesseW and User:Sverdrup (who is an administrator) (Please read discussion here), who adviced me to be bold and to make this step. (Please see Template:GO header for an idea about what change I was going to implement in the Goings-on page). Anyway, I've made the change, and few minutes later It was reverted, and a discussion begun Wikipedia talk:Goings-on#Change in the Announcement and Goings-on page trying to reach a consensus and to state my point about the change, but Ambi has just accused me to have wrecked the page without even trying to understand my point or to continue properly this discussion.
- Second, I recently worked on a proposal, the Wikipedia:Album namespace, where I wrote on a this page problems and benefits about this proposal, but Ambi had made his opposing final judgement (see Wikipedia talk:Album namespace) without stating his reasons or continue a proper discussion. And writing his creation of Wikipedia:Album namespace makes me wonder as well, makes me wonder, aren't we allowed anymore to make proposals even with the risk of being rejected? If you read this proposal, it's reasons are almost the same as the Portal namespace and it got approval. Ambi criticised me of changing the Goings-on page without a long discussion, and now he's criticising because I've posted a formal proposal. I really don't understand what is his motivation are to attack me.
- Third, the same user wrote: User doesn't seem to have spent much time on Wikipedia, or to be familiar with its practices and should wait a while and learn how things work around here. I'm sorry but I consider myself very keen on Wikipedia policies, I've read them all and I still trying to find ways to improve them. For an example, please see the discussion I've made with a new user about a new page he's writing here.
- One last thing (that doesn't have to do with Ambi). I've got many posts stating that I should change my User page because it's not suitable for navigators other than Internet explorer. I'm really sorry but most of the code of this page is copied from another one. I've just made few minor changes. I'm not really good at CSS and creating tables. But I'm willing to accept if someone could change my User page for me to make it suitable for all navigators.
Thank you for your understanding. CG 09:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
