| Revision as of 00:41, 18 August 2012 editKauffner (talk | contribs)32,539 edits →Account← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:14, 18 August 2012 edit undoDjsasso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators142,338 edits →AccountNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :This is such nonsense. I moved these pages six or nine months ago, and for most part they still where I put them. If they were "controversial" they would have been moved back, or at least the issue would come up before now. I am not putting up with these restrictions. ] (]) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC) | :This is such nonsense. I moved these pages six or nine months ago, and for most part they still where I put them. If they were "controversial" they would have been moved back, or at least the issue would come up before now. I am not putting up with these restrictions. ] (]) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Just because people didn't notice your actions on low traffic pages doesn't mean they aren't controversial. Clearly the fact that people are now reacting to them when the extent of your mass moves were discovered is the indication that they are controversial. You have been in 100s of debates about diacritics over the last year or two that I can see. You were well aware at the time of those moves that people objected to moving articles (any articles) from titles that had them to titles that didn't have them or the other way around. Mass moving pages and then trying to claim that that was the status quo so you can create a guideline based on it is extremely bad form. -] (]) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:14, 18 August 2012
Account
You can't really have an account "deleted". You can, in some cases, have it renamed, but that's relatively uncommon for editors with ~30k edits, unless they intent to leave permanently.
The restrictions are in place to stop you making or presenting controversial moves as uncontroversial. You're still free to discuss either in general or on individual moves and use the RM process for controversial moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is such nonsense. I moved these pages six or nine months ago, and for most part they still where I put them. If they were "controversial" they would have been moved back, or at least the issue would come up before now. I am not putting up with these restrictions. Kauffner (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just because people didn't notice your actions on low traffic pages doesn't mean they aren't controversial. Clearly the fact that people are now reacting to them when the extent of your mass moves were discovered is the indication that they are controversial. You have been in 100s of debates about diacritics over the last year or two that I can see. You were well aware at the time of those moves that people objected to moving articles (any articles) from titles that had them to titles that didn't have them or the other way around. Mass moving pages and then trying to claim that that was the status quo so you can create a guideline based on it is extremely bad form. -DJSasso (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)