| Revision as of 08:23, 15 August 2008 editMetavalent (talk | contribs)84 editsm →User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + Secure GW, but STILL banned from editing pages?← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:28, 15 August 2008 edit undoMetavalent (talk | contribs)84 editsm →User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + Secure GW, but STILL banned from editing pages?Next edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I now have a mondo WHIRLPOOL User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + coming on on Secure Gateway. That seems like a pretty good safety net to me. | I now have a mondo WHIRLPOOL User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + coming on on Secure Gateway. That seems like a pretty good safety net to me. | ||
| Look forward to learning your perspective. |
Look forward to learning your perspective. ] (]) 08:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:28, 15 August 2008
 | Nakon is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages some time later. |
Question:
We're re-building that Code Name: Desert Hunt page... we admit that the first time through we didn't do a good job of showing why it needed to be included on wikipedia, so we're trying to get more people to help us edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.173.45 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
St Radegund public house
Hi, could you tell me why St Radegund public house was deleted? It was apparently given 5 days with a proposed deletion notice, which is policy, but still seems a little short on an article that got less than 5 edits a year. As far as I can tell, no discussion was sought, and since I am not an admin, I can't see any details of the proposed deletion notice.
Could I request you copy the proposed deletion reason into the deletion summary for future deletions, for the benefit of non-admins? Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + Secure GW, but STILL banned from editing pages?
I keep getting blocked from adding some useful requested citations to a couple of pages about cellulosic ethanol yields and I'd like to suggest that universally blocking anonymizer.com users doesn't seem to make much sense. This is a legitimate commercial security solution which we pay for, and it is of the quality and reputation that one would hope clueful folks like Misplaced Pages would enthusiastically endorse.
I understand that the mods at Misplaced Pages have godlike powers and I'm duly fearful of being slapped down hard for even daring to raise such a question, but my point is not combative at all. I am merely suggesting that if I am willing to stand by my every keystroke entered on the site, it seems I should also have the right to protect every bit in transit to and from the site and my strongly authenticated identity. Am I completely out of line on that suggestion?
I now have a mondo WHIRLPOOL User committed identity + GPG fingerprint + coming on on Secure Gateway. That seems like a pretty good safety net to me.
Look forward to learning your perspective. metavalent (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)