Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No no no no no! This is meant to be a unified timeline; otherwise, there's little point.
James F. (talk) 23:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. You should know that most people are not going to see your comments here, and leave your comments somewhere else. Lirath Q. Pynnor
-
- Firstly, only 3 people have contributed to the evidence page so far, and, of those, at least two of them have evidently seen my remark, so I fear not for its notability.
- Secondly, I meant that the timelines given are not meant to be partisan, but instead unified from both sides.
- Apologies for brevity and shortness.
- James F. (talk) 23:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd be happy to refactor the page to the timeline format, assuming Lir isn't going to pitch a fit if I refactor his comments into the proper format. Snowspinner 23:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am going to pitch a fit, Snowspinner is not allowed to "refactor" my comments to support his own biased timeline. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I'm not entirely sure how my timeline would be biased... I was mostly going to move the diff links to be in chronological order, and then put attributed comments from the people who have commented immediately after them. No content would be deleted. Snowspinner 23:51, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change. I copied rather than moved Lir's text - I think it better if this is removed by an arbitrator rather than me or Snowspinner (or maybe Lir will delete it, if Lir agrees that it was moved correctly). As far as I'm aware, the only change to the text was to split one sentence from Snowspinner and one from Lir, where both discussed two edits in one comment. Other than that the text should be identical. -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
