Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--] (]) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--] (]) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at that discussion. The primary issue with this FAQ is that it's just not a policy and was never meant to be. These "discussions" of what "is is" means are always...well..problematic, to be perfectly ] about it. ] <small>]</small> 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at that discussion. The primary issue with this FAQ is that it's just not a policy and was never meant to be. These "discussions" of what "is is" means are always...well..problematic, to be perfectly ] about it. ] <small>]</small> 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
== Do not edit my comments ==
Do not edit my comments as you did . That is forbidden. ] (]) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:21, 12 February 2009
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
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. STORMTRACKER94
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
Hi, Dreadstar. A vandal who was given a final warning a few days ago has continued to vandalize Misplaced Pages, most recently. It may be time to block. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently changed this page to reflect the fact that it is a guideline, not a policy. I ahve no problem with this, but it has, as it were, "brought you to my attention". On the talk page of that article I recently launched an RfC regarding the small section on the FAQ about the use of ambiguous words in religious articles. Unsurprisingly, the debate has devolved into one purely about the word "myth". If you have any interest in this subject I would appreciate input from an admin as I am already at wits-end and ready to go to some other stage of arbitration.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at that discussion. The primary issue with this FAQ is that it's just not a policy and was never meant to be. These "discussions" of what "is is" means are always...well..problematic, to be perfectly PC about it. Dreadstar†17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
