| Revision as of 04:57, 18 September 2006 editKevin B12 (talk | contribs)6,614 edits Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:57, 18 September 2006 edit undoKevin B12 (talk | contribs)6,614 editsm →Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus: missing 'Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| == Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus == | == Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus == | ||
| Hi, I happened to notice your issues with ]. First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with ]. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings ''should' be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --] 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | Hi, I happened to notice your issues with ]. First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with ]. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings ''should'' be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --] 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:57, 18 September 2006
Vandalism
Please do not remove comments from user talk pages, such as you did to mine with this edit:. It is considered WP:Vandalism. -- Dcflyer 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do no remove semi-protection tags from articles
Please do not remove the semi-protection tag from articles that are semi-protected. Doing so does not remove the protection from the page but does mislead editors. Thanks, Gwernol 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism, guidelines/polices, and consensus
Hi, I happened to notice your issues with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). First, you really ought to not edit a guideline, then use your edits to the guideline to endorse your changes to articles. Things don't work that way, major changes to guidelines should be well thought out, and with consensus. Its very bad form that after you remove the warnings from your talk page and have it reverted to restore the warnings, you go and claim that there's a consensus that warnings should be removed. (for which that addition was also reverted) Next, the consensus you've claimed for the MOS guideline appears to be disputed. You can't go and say 'see talk page' then have your comments on the talk page say to see other editor's edits to the guideline. Because of the dispute, someone else changing it back to what you don't want is not vandalism, its more of a content dispute. You shouldn't use 'rvv', which is a wiki slang for reverting vandalism to revert in a content dispute. --Kevin_b_er 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)