| Revision as of 23:00, 28 February 2010 editSoap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers29,118 editsm Reverted edits by 94.85.79.19 (talk) to last version by Kralizec!← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:01, 28 February 2010 edit undo72.229.242.31 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Moot is a faggot | |||
| {{User:NuclearWarfare/Menu}} | |||
| {{talk header|noarchive=yes}} | |||
| {| class="{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk}} messagebox" | |||
| | {{#if:{{{header|}}}|rowspan="2"}} align="center" style="width:53px;"|] | |||
| |align="left"|<big>'''Wait!'''</big> Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? ] before leaving a message to find out why. | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 21 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{archives | |||
| | collapsed = yes | |||
| | bot = MiszaBot III | |||
| | age = 7 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{search archives | small=yes}} | |||
| == ] - Join the discussion == | == ] - Join the discussion == | ||
Revision as of 23:01, 28 February 2010
Moot is a faggot
Vandals get off far too easily - Join the discussion
Do you believe that vandals get off far too easily? I'm thinking about proposing a change to the blocking policy, but I would be interested in hearing others' opinions first. Please feel free to leave your thoughts at User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings, and invite anyone you wish to the discussion. NW (Talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Closing RFAs
I only closed because it expired and was clearly not going to succeed but then again if it's a problem to you, I'll leave it to the user. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: Legal
Sorry, I do not see the request you said you received from NonvocalScream in his contributions history. Was it a result of off-wiki stealth canvassing?
Regardless, I am going to guess that you have not actually read any of the discussions between the two of us on this topic. If you had, you would understand that I do not care either way about the removal of the text he does not like; my initial objection was to the out-of-process nature of his change. Since that time, I also object to his assertion that this change is urgently needed when the text in question was added 768 days ago, and I strongly object to his claim that the desires of OTRS volunteers override Misplaced Pages's official Consensus policy.
Again, I have no opinion on the removal of the text in question, and in fact I understand and sympathize with the frustrations expressed by both you and the other OTRS volunteers who have commented at WP:UTM. However NonvocalScream is mistaken about the irrelevance of the official WP:CONS policy, as neither his opinion, nor my opinion, nor even that of the whole OTRS team trumps the Consensus policy. Since the info-en email link was added to the template more than 109 weeks ago -with no objections from anyone outside of NonvocalScream's most recent 20 edits- it seems reasonable that we could discuss the issue for a couple of days in order to determine consensus (however I see that he resumed railroading his opinion after just 19 hours). — Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)