This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Youreallycan (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 27 November 2011 (→You and welcome templates: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:50, 27 November 2011 by Youreallycan (talk | contribs) (→You and welcome templates: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 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. |
Stirling University
Are you aware that your insertion about a tribunal case in Stirling University has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDav22 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Au contraire! ;~)
3RR exemptions
WP:NOT3RR
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 biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard 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 dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 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 WP:BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
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 was just taking the piss and childish. Stay off any talkpage that I label as mine.