Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Epbr123: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:13, 10 September 2007 editBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,251 edits Don't worry about it.← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:06, 11 September 2007 edit undoRypcord (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,310 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. ] \| ] 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).		:Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. ] \| ] 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

			*The guy is pretty much just off his rocker. He wants the articles to meet HIS requirements, and if they don't, they should just be deleted. The ]. 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:06, 11 September 2007

Just to let everyone know, I've notified User:Epbr123 of this RfC. However, he's sought fit to remove it from his talk page minutes after I've posted it. While I do believe it should stay on his talk page, at least until the RfC ends, I don't care to go down that road -- particularly since I don't see anything in the RfC guidelines regarding the user's right (or lack thereof) of removing RfC notification messages from their own user talk page. On the other hand, the user has clearly seen it and knows of its existence, and thus cannot feign ignorance to these proceedings, so I guess the point is more or less moot. Regardless, what it boils down to is that the user has been notified and knows. Any questions, comments, or concerns are more than welcome. So say we all. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

The guy is pretty much just off his rocker. He wants the articles to meet HIS requirements, and if they don't, they should just be deleted. The Rypcord. 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:13, 10 September 2007 editBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,251 edits Don't worry about it.← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:06, 11 September 2007 edit undoRypcord (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,310 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. ] \| ] 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).		:Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. ] \| ] 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

			*The guy is pretty much just off his rocker. He wants the articles to meet HIS requirements, and if they don't, they should just be deleted. The ]. 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)