| Revision as of 21:52, 11 August 2015 editS Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,385 edits Please withdraw your objection← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:49, 11 August 2015 edit undoLevelledout (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,042 edits →Word and evidence limitTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| == Word and evidence limit == | == Word and evidence limit == | ||
| Hi, Levelledout. I'm here to ask you to withdraw your objection to an increased word and diff limit for QuackGuru. Everyone else involved, including you, will be able to develop a clear and coherent case in a few hundred words and a couple of dozen well-chosen diffs. QG will not be able to do this. He will make a case the way he writes an article: with hundreds of carefully-cited quotes grouped by topic, beautifully accurate but hopelessly unclear because there will be no thesis, no clear starting point and no conclusions. I think the arbs will emerge from reading 1,500 words of QG's prose with no great insight into his mind but a much keener appreciation for the problems we experience in dealing with him.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | Hi, Levelledout. I'm here to ask you to withdraw your objection to an increased word and diff limit for QuackGuru. Everyone else involved, including you, will be able to develop a clear and coherent case in a few hundred words and a couple of dozen well-chosen diffs. QG will not be able to do this. He will make a case the way he writes an article: with hundreds of carefully-cited quotes grouped by topic, beautifully accurate but hopelessly unclear because there will be no thesis, no clear starting point and no conclusions. I think the arbs will emerge from reading 1,500 words of QG's prose with no great insight into his mind but a much keener appreciation for the problems we experience in dealing with him.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :@] You have a point. I will withdraw part of my complaint and leave it down to the arbs to decide, who will have to read through the resultant sprawling mess. I maintain that all editors should have a level playing field though.] (]) 22:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:49, 11 August 2015
| Archives | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil 11:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Plant-based diet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plant-based diet. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Word and evidence limit
Hi, Levelledout. I'm here to ask you to withdraw your objection to an increased word and diff limit for QuackGuru. Everyone else involved, including you, will be able to develop a clear and coherent case in a few hundred words and a couple of dozen well-chosen diffs. QG will not be able to do this. He will make a case the way he writes an article: with hundreds of carefully-cited quotes grouped by topic, beautifully accurate but hopelessly unclear because there will be no thesis, no clear starting point and no conclusions. I think the arbs will emerge from reading 1,500 words of QG's prose with no great insight into his mind but a much keener appreciation for the problems we experience in dealing with him.—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @S Marshall You have a point. I will withdraw part of my complaint and leave it down to the arbs to decide, who will have to read through the resultant sprawling mess. I maintain that all editors should have a level playing field though.Levelledout (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)