User talk:SergeyJ/Arhiv2010

Hi, well, the Special projects committee faded out of existence through inactivity, and being replaced by other roles; and its Wikiversity subcommittee wasn't needed after Wikiversity was set up. :-) Cormaggio ^@ 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you meant by your "admin flag removal" question on Babel? Or post the question in Russian as well? Thank you! Sj+ help translate 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give diffs to the page/s where they have made POV pushing? --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In it there is no necessity, this my personal opinion. SergeyJ 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it will be nice for others to see your reasons and perhaps change their opinion. Or is this just a revanche for their opposing of your ´crat election? --WizardOfOz ^talk 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok SergeyJ 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: Steward reconfirmations are about arguments, not about opinions. So if you can't solidify your opinion with arguments, they would not have a lot of influence. Just for your information, maybe you want to reconsider on giving arguments. --Effeietsanders 00:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Steward confirmations

Please note that while you're completely entitled to your opinion, I am also entitled to my own, and voicing my opinion does not defeat the "Don't Decide" rule.

Despite being a steward, I'm just as fully capable of expressing my opinion on a matter as any other editor. Deciding would be were I to have declined or promoted you: I did not, I simply spoke my mind.

Please keep that in mind, sir. Kylu 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but you as the steward have ignored my opinion and my arguments, have closed discussion and have politely suggested me to be silent. This bad quality for the steward. SergeyJ 16:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you have divided responsibility for the decision between other stewards. But it does not mean that you are not involved. Moreover can look my voice Stewards/confirm/2010/Laaknor, it had reasons to doubt, but you - group of stewards should not give the chance to it to break a rule. You have expressed opinion and distances will be made not to the legitimate decision. Therefore all responsibility on you (and 2-3 more stewards), instead of on it. SergeyJ 16:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We suggested that you open an RFC so that others can help in building a policy that would clarify the situation. One project should not dominate discussions on matters that affect all of them. That's not the same as suggesting (politely or otherwise) to be silent. I apologize if you misinterpreted it to mean that. Further, there is no rulebreaking involved: Previous consensus on the matter (which I noted, as did another steward) wanted a greater number of votes. If you'd like to oppose me for simply not giving you what you wanted, that's fine, but it's dishonest to say that I broke the "Don't Decide" rule. Have a nice day. Kylu 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Вы наверное меня не слышите. Кое что я еще пояснил здесь Stewards/confirm/2010/Effeietsanders. Нечестно то, что вы и другие стюарды действовали без правил, а по собственному мнению. RFC  ? Вы прекрасно знаете что это значит ... там мне никто не ответил бы .. именно поэтому это все равно что молчать. Может быть здесь мало участников ? Или никого не интересуют RFC ? Может и так, но почему-то здесь много стюардов, бюракратов, администраторов .. но никому не интересны RFC. Почему так я не знаю. RFC должны были открывать вы - группа стюардов чтобы сделать такое решение. Не путайте причину со следствием. И открыв Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes - где хоть какой-то результат ? SergeyJ 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably do not hear me. Which that I have still explained here Stewards/confirm/2010/Effeietsanders. Dishonestly that you and other stewards operated without rules, and in own opinion. RFC? You perfectly know that it means... There nobody would answer me. For this reason it all the same what to be silent. There can be here few participants? Or interest nobody RFC? Can and so, but for some reason here it is a lot of stewards, burocraats, admin. But are interesting to nobody RFC. Why so I do not know. RFC you should open - group of stewards to make such decision. Do not confuse the reason to a consequence. And having opened Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes - where though any result? SergeyJ 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot specify till now to me on what basis of a rule you have refused to me, but have given the rights here [kn.wikipedia: Only 3 voices pro: [1] 2009-07] SergeyJ 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. You seem to be quite sure that I'm corrupt and rule-ignoring, despite my offense being to give a single opinion on how things have been done in the past and a suggestion to use the only dispute resolution system available on Meta to resolve the dispute. I don't think it's productive to continue to make my point further. Best wishes. Kylu 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to exaggerate. Unfortunately, has put not personally in you. Anything personal. You are not worse. You (and others) simply refuse to do better. I do not understand, or you do not understand me because of complexities of transfer, or is simple to you conveniently to ignore that I suggest to make. SergeyJ 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can if you do not wish to solve actively a problem and to think as it better to make - that it is not necessary to be the steward? SergeyJ 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Steward_requests/Global#Unblock_for_User:Yaroslav_Blanter_on_ru.wv

It may pacify the situation if you left a note regarding the reason for the block on Russian Wikiversity. Kylu 01:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Я плохо владею английским, и отвечу на русском. И переведу автопереводчиком. Если возникнет не понимание прошу уточнять. Ситуация достаточно сложная и имеет предисторию. Сейчас я не имею времени все это рассказать. Данному участнику я оставил сообщение [2] . Это также обсуждалось в нашем сообществе [3], хотя многие участники сейчас отдыхают. Если коротко: данный участник был заблокирован за оскорбления, и может быть разблокирован если принесет извинения. Но это далеко не вся история, она как я говорил имеет предисторию. Если возникнут более детальные вопросы - я готов ответить.

I badly know English, and I will answer in Russian. Also I will translate the autotranslator. If there will be not an understanding ask to specify. The situation difficult enough also has a prehistory. Now I have no time all it to tell. To the given participant I have left the message [4]. It also was discussed in our community [5] though many participants have now a rest. If it is short: the given participant has been blocked for insults, and can be unblocked if apologizes. But it is not all history, it as I spoke has a prehistory. If there will be more detailed questions - I am ready to answer. SergeyJ 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

diff

Okay, so I was right the first time? I swear I read your suggestion on that page and then I went to dig up the diff where you said to close and... it vanished!

Or maybe I was just sleepy? Kylu 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Or maybe I was just sleepy? [6] Likely yes :) SergeyJ 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)