Content deleted Content added
Kevin Gorman (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Why remove non-argumentative clarifications to questions posed to you on your arbcom Q&A page? [[User:Kevin Gorman|Kevin Gorman]] ([[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk]]) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
Why remove non-argumentative clarifications to questions posed to you on your arbcom Q&A page? [[User:Kevin Gorman|Kevin Gorman]] ([[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk]]) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Do you have evidence oversight has ever denied a request for removal of either a birthdate or a zip code? <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
:Do you have evidence oversight has ever denied a request for removal of either a birthdate or a zip code? <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Please stop restoring my question if you are going to insist on deleting the clarification. I have a direct emailed statement signed by arb and OS teams (although I know that individual OS'er and individual arbs disagreed with it) stating that ''anything'' not specifically included in the oversight criteria (and zip and DOB are not) is not oversightable. Please either restore my clarification or delete the entire question; deleting non-argumentative clarification while retaining the rest of the question is not all that different from simply editing my question so that it as a question you liked more. Yes, I am also running, but I'm also voting and see specific value in having a non-admin on the committee and am refining the slate of candidates I'm voting for. [[User:Kevin Gorman|Kevin Gorman]] ([[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk]]) 03:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:48, 1 December 2015
Archives
|
---|
Not elected yet
Don't tempt the fates. [1] People are on edge. That was a very funny typo. Jehochman Talk 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've been doing that for years. Once I tried to do it the "right way" by leaving a user talk page message; the arbitrator thought I was starting an argument and it got all convoluted. So the Ent rule is, per WP:TPO "there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar," if a typo is an obvious misspelling, I ignore it, but if it alters the meaning of the word -- for example, transposing the g and n in "sign" -- and it's obvious what was meant, I simply fix it. They haven't yell at me yet. NE Ent 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty typical for a Q&A to allow clarifications....
Why remove non-argumentative clarifications to questions posed to you on your arbcom Q&A page? Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence oversight has ever denied a request for removal of either a birthdate or a zip code? NE Ent 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop restoring my question if you are going to insist on deleting the clarification. I have a direct emailed statement signed by arb and OS teams (although I know that individual OS'er and individual arbs disagreed with it) stating that anything not specifically included in the oversight criteria (and zip and DOB are not) is not oversightable. Please either restore my clarification or delete the entire question; deleting non-argumentative clarification while retaining the rest of the question is not all that different from simply editing my question so that it as a question you liked more. Yes, I am also running, but I'm also voting and see specific value in having a non-admin on the committee and am refining the slate of candidates I'm voting for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)