| Revision as of 10:50, 6 December 2008 editTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 edits →Edmonton municipal election, 1963← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:14, 6 December 2008 edit undoTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,356 edits →Edmonton municipal election, 1963: trivial and very possibly non-notable. Edit warring it is not, if you pleaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :Why wouldn't these edits constitute edit warring? ] (]) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | :Why wouldn't these edits constitute edit warring? ] (]) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Tennis expert, how could something so trivial in such a trivial article constitute edit warring. Lightmouse puts so much effort and skill into improving articles that it would be obscenely out of balance to call this "edit warring". I'm thinking of listing the article for deletion. How is it notable? ] ] 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:14, 6 December 2008
Future of bot delinking
If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, with apologies I'm dumping the whole discussion on you (see below), as it was way off topic for MOSNUM. I hope you don't mind hosting it on your talk page, or else moving it to somewhere more appropriate. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting
Link you posted at ANI. Did you have a hand in drafting it? Tiamut 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I didn't help draft it. I have been a victim of Wild West admins that 'block first and ask questions later' and I am supportive of ensuring that the powerful are supervised. Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure I'm not the only admin who's looked on with some bewilderment at the way you've been treated in general for trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to here that. I have the same feeling about my experience here. Check my block log (4 3RR blocks from over a year ago). Three of those were due to reports filed by one now vanished editor who was edit-warring with me at the time and faced no sanctions himself. The last one was due to a 3RR report that I filed against an editor that has since been banned for being a sockpuppet. I was blocked for reverting his edits twice. Anyway, it's a very interesting proposal. I'd like to help however I can. Tiamut 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to drop Tony a supporting comment on the adminwatch page. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Edmonton municipal election, 1963
This is the sixth time that you've made that edit, and this is the fourth time I've come to your talk page asking you to stop making it. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Suggestions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't these edits constitute edit warring? Tennis expert (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tennis expert, how could something so trivial in such a trivial article constitute edit warring. Lightmouse puts so much effort and skill into improving articles that it would be obscenely out of balance to call this "edit warring". I'm thinking of listing the article for deletion. How is it notable? Tony (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)