This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JayBeeEll (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 1 April 2019 (→Constructive: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:04, 1 April 2019 by JayBeeEll (talk | contribs) (→Constructive: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Your help desk question
You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vchimpanzee, I know (I keep checking). I've researched it as much as I can, but need confirmation, due to a rather large series of edits being done on WP, ostensibly, to adhere to WP:POSTNOM, yet doing the opposite, in my estimation. I had noticed erroneous post-nom deletions on a few pages that I had worked on, (Bill Gates and Ratan Tata, for instance, which have become repetitive, so looked further, and I see that there are scores of post-nom deletions by the same editor, which seems unwarranted. Perhaps it's my misinterpretation, since little notice seems to have been paid by other editors. I need a second opinion. I don't want to raise apparent ire over this unnecessarily, yet it does seem inappropriate to delete these post-noms. AHampton (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the answer is, but when I look at the Help Desk archives I try to answer any unanswered questions or at least let the person know. even if the question is answered, I know what it is not to know where the question was answered on a web site.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Constructive
As an answer to my question, I take this comment to mean "no", i.e., you were not attempting to offer an opinion about what the text of MOS should read, or to offer comment on the draft that was being discussed there. That's fine, I guess, but it seems to me that it goes against the general purpose of talk pages (e.g., as enshrined point 4 here). Also, with respect to the earlier discussion, it does not appear to me that SMcCandlish either insulted or threatened you. I agree that his decision to return to the discussion 3 weeks later seems like a questionable decision, but the same could be said of your addition to it today. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)