Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Plautus satire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (invalid and vandalous nomination). |
There are no requests for comment about me. In order for that to take place, I have to be in a dispute with somebody, then two other users have to try to resolve it, then there's a 48-hour period where the solution is attempted. Aren't you jumping the gun a little bit, Snowspinner? What exactly is your personal agenda here? Plautus satire 04:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand - this is the old RfC from a year and a half ago. It was redirected to the arbitration page as was the practice at the time. We don't redirect these anymore, but leave them up. Since you're back, it seemed sensible to un-redirect it to be in line with current practice. Snowspinner 04:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comment added to the page
Since the page is supposed to be an archive of an old RfC, new comments shouldn't be added to it. The talk page should be used instead. --cesarb 16:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
comment added to #The Plautus timeline project:
-
- Pardon a newbie for commenting but have I read you correctly ? You appear to be saying that you have been asked, by the committee who will arbitrate on this RfC, to collect evidence specifically related only to one side of the argument. Has anyone been asekd to collect evidence for the other side (or is this the sort of query best left unasked ?) --Simon Cursitor 08:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Further to above, and in light of comments above: Again, may I ask, have I understodd the position correctly ? This contributor is *now* being pursued for a dispute which may have occurred some time ago, and which may or may not in fact have been amicably resolved. On this basis, then, presumably, once a "complaint" is registered, so long as it is never officialy "signed-off", the contributor can be taken to task on it for the rest of eternity. This is certainly what appears to be the case being argued above. --Simon Cursitor 07:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
