Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dreadstar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:27, 6 November 2014 view sourceMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,457 edits →New comments below this section← Previous edit Revision as of 21:37, 6 November 2014 view source Masem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,457 edits →On GGNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
==On GG== ==On GG==
Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --] (]) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --] (]) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
:To note, this is second removal of that same bit after the same commentor re-added it after its removal, so obviously that's a problem too, but again this going to back who should and/or shouldn't be policing the talk page with the sanctions in place. --] (]) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:37, 6 November 2014

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Welcome!
   

Archives and sandboxes

In recognition of your efforts on Misplaced Pages and for dedication to law oriented edits, I, Cdogsimmons, award you the Society Barnstar.

Defender

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin

Award!

The Vandal Eliminator Award
* I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94

RL Barnstar

The Real Life Barnstar
- For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1
Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1
Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1

Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

On GG

Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To note, this is second removal of that same bit after the same commentor re-added it after its removal, so obviously that's a problem too, but again this going to back who should and/or shouldn't be policing the talk page with the sanctions in place. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)