User talk:Seicer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:31, 15 January 2015 editSeicer (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 edits Archive← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:57, 15 January 2015 edit undoMrX (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits →I think you missed my request: new sectionNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* '''Archives:''' 2006 \| ] \| ] \| 2007 \| ] \| ] \| 2008 \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| 2009 \| ] \| ] \| ] \| 2010 \| ] \| 2012 \| ] \| 2013 \| ] \| 2014 \| ] \| 2015 \| ]		* '''Archives:''' 2006 \| ] \| ] \| 2007 \| ] \| ] \| 2008 \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| ] \| 2009 \| ] \| ] \| ] \| 2010 \| ] \| 2012 \| ] \| 2013 \| ] \| 2014 \| ] \| 2015 \| ]
	\|}		\|}

			== I think you missed my request ==

			Hi seicer. It looks like you accidentally archived my post on your talk page from yesterday. I was asking if you would please discuss your ruling at AN/EW in accordance with ].

			In you ruled that there was no edit warring violation because "there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted". That would imply that at least three of WWGB's reverts were ] exceptions. Could you please explain which edits you think are legitimate exceptions and why? I'm definitely not seeing it, and it apparently wasn't obvious to EdJohnston either. Many thanks. - ]] 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:57, 15 January 2015

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of October 2009.

Archives: 2006 | 01 | 02 | 2007 | 03 | 04 | 2008 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 2009 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 2010 | 17 | 2012 | 18 | 2013 | 19 | 2014 | 20 | 2015 | 21

I think you missed my request

Hi seicer. It looks like you accidentally archived my post on your talk page from yesterday. I was asking if you would please discuss your ruling at AN/EW in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT.

In this AN/EW report you ruled that there was no edit warring violation because "there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted". That would imply that at least three of WWGB's reverts were WP:3RRBLP exceptions. Could you please explain which edits you think are legitimate exceptions and why? I'm definitely not seeing it, and it apparently wasn't obvious to EdJohnston either. Many thanks. - Mr X 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)