| Revision as of 16:20, 30 January 2008 editSamiharris (talk | contribs)1,443 editsm →Gary Weiss← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 30 January 2008 edit undoSamiharris (talk | contribs)1,443 editsm →Gary WeissNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| Please, if you decide that an edit by an Amorrow sock is a good one, put words to the effect that you're personally standing behind the edit as good on merits in your edit summary, rather than even inadvertantly giving the appearance that you're rollbacking the admin that undid his edits in accordance with policy. Amorrow is banned and his edits are revert on sight, by policy. does not make that clear enough, in my view. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | Please, if you decide that an edit by an Amorrow sock is a good one, put words to the effect that you're personally standing behind the edit as good on merits in your edit summary, rather than even inadvertantly giving the appearance that you're rollbacking the admin that undid his edits in accordance with policy. Amorrow is banned and his edits are revert on sight, by policy. does not make that clear enough, in my view. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Perhaps Luke was not aware it was an Amorrow |
Perhaps Luke was not aware it was an Amorrow sock. However, he ''was'' aware that comments to his Talk page a few days ago were by a confirmed sock of bannned user WordBomb, and he declined to role back those edits even after I pointed it out to him.. I don't believe that his remedy of archiving the entire discussion was the correct one, particularly since there were BLP issues in the WordBomb sock's comments.--] (]) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:21, 30 January 2008
 Archives |
|---|
| Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004 |
| Archive2–Jan 5, 2005 |
| Archive3–Dec 1, 2006 |
| Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007 |
| Archive 5–Sep 19, 2007 |
| Archive 6–Jan 27, 2008 |
TSM
I would suggest at least a semi protect on Thomas S. Monson for the next few days at least. There will likely be a lot of goofy edits stating he is the new president of the church until the deal is actually sealed. I've already reverted a few weird ones. Snocrates 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The reference given to the article by Top and Flake is a good one. Read the paragraph under point #3 At the Presidents death....
President Monson is now the President of the Church. He may not be the head of the first Presidency. Read also the CES Institute Manual Religion 333 Chapter 7. It is pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppsna (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Cisse
You expressed an interest in the subject at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student) I accidentally came across a new additional source: I'm not sure it's free, so I will email you the contents. It however links to this Chicago Tribune story, which is. There's an earlier article in the same source which I will also send you. that is has 2 articles in Chronicle of Higher Education shows general interest. DGG (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Gary Weiss
Please, if you decide that an edit by an Amorrow sock is a good one, put words to the effect that you're personally standing behind the edit as good on merits in your edit summary, rather than even inadvertantly giving the appearance that you're rollbacking the admin that undid his edits in accordance with policy. Amorrow is banned and his edits are revert on sight, by policy. this revert does not make that clear enough, in my view. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Luke was not aware it was an Amorrow sock. However, he was aware that comments to his Talk page a few days ago were by a confirmed sock of bannned user WordBomb, and he declined to role back those edits even after I pointed it out to him.. I don't believe that his remedy of archiving the entire discussion was the correct one, particularly since there were BLP issues in the WordBomb sock's comments.--Samiharris (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)