Revision as of 12:10, 22 May 2008 editJefffire (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,518 edits →Reply to Ncmvocalist← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:11, 22 May 2008 edit undoJefffire (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,518 editsm →Reply to Ncmvocalist: clarifyNext edit → | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Those core policies you mention are '''content''' policies - disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the ] policy, belong in an ]. This is a request for comment on user '''conduct''', and involves conduct policies like ], ], ] etc. Please follow due process. ] (]) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | :Those core policies you mention are '''content''' policies - disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the ] policy, belong in an ]. This is a request for comment on user '''conduct''', and involves conduct policies like ], ], ] etc. Please follow due process. ] (]) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
::My understanding is that this isn't about |
::My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. ] (]) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:11, 22 May 2008
Reply to Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist would throw out all evidence of content from this dispute. However, WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE), WP:NOR, and WP:V are all core policies. To say that core policies cannot be discussed at RfC is nonsense. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works in relation to dispute resolution, so I'll make it clearer for you.
- Those core policies you mention are content policies - disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC. This is a request for comment on user conduct, and involves conduct policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR etc. Please follow due process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. Jefffire (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)