This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shirik (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 28 February 2010 (→Filter 294: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:05, 28 February 2010 by Shirik (talk | contribs) (→Filter 294: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
Filter 294
Hi again NW! I noticed MiszaBot triggered 294 earlier today. I thought you might want to know. I will exempt bots from that filter, but you might want to check to see if your archives are a bit off due to the missed archive. Also, I made another adjustment to that filter due to an ongoing attack. I assume you want to leave it enabled. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)