| Revision as of 16:59, 27 November 2011 editYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →You and welcome templates← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:52, 27 November 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * }} | * }} | ||
| == Stirling University == | |||
| Are you aware that your insertion about a tribunal case in Stirling University has been removed? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Au contraire! ;~) == | |||
| <blockquote>'''3RR exemptions'''<p>]<br>The following actions are ''not'' counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... ... *Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on ] (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the ] instead of relying on this exemption. ... If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in ], and in particular ask for help at ] such as the ].</blockquote>--] (]) 19:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh dear -- if you think you can wave "BLP" around and be exempt from 3RR, you might have a rude awakening. My own edits (in my view of course) more closely conform with ]. ] (]) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Concrete proposal == | == Concrete proposal == | ||
Revision as of 17:52, 27 November 2011
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Concrete proposal
Someone did make one: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Proposed change to WP:NOTCENSORED. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts?
Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
McQueary
I haven't followed this info, but should we specify which police department said that? And whom? Who did McQueary say he reported it to. "Police" is vague. The police rebuttal is specific. Jesanj (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can see why this would be desirable. It would also be possible to provide so much detail that the article becomes difficult to read. So it would be a question of balance, and at this point I would lean against significant addition of detail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You and welcome templates
Don't follow me round - it is because of you and others like you that I have moved along so I don't want or need your welcome templates. Your posting of one on a talkpage clearly labeled as mine was just taking the piss and childish. Stay off any talkpage that I label as mine. - Your attitude in adding a welcome template in the manner of pissing to a talkpage with a retired template on it shows you for the person you really are. Youreallycan (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)