RashersTierney (talk | contribs) whack a mole |
→Your "British Isles" proposal: new section |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==BI== |
==BI== |
||
We may have a 'new' problematic editor, judging from these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Triton_Rocker]. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
We may have a 'new' problematic editor, judging from these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Triton_Rocker]. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Your "British Isles" proposal == |
|||
Would you be willing to modify your proposal to avoid "naming names"? In other words, we'd start with a list of zero editors, and add to it as needed, instead of starting with HighKing and LevenBoy. I gather that as the proposal is currently worded "the Irish camp" see it as a "pro-British" proposal (which I strongly disagree with, but I'm keen to maintain momentum for the proposal). [[User talk:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b>]] 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:53, 14 July 2010
Welcome back
This may be a bit belated, but I am glad to see you unretired. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What 2/0 said. On a separate note (about the British Isles proposal), please see my comment here - as proposer, you may want to add something to that effect to the proposal so that procedural issues are dealt with before it is enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
BI
We may have a 'new' problematic editor, judging from these [1]. RashersTierney (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Your "British Isles" proposal
Would you be willing to modify your proposal to avoid "naming names"? In other words, we'd start with a list of zero editors, and add to it as needed, instead of starting with HighKing and LevenBoy. I gather that as the proposal is currently worded "the Irish camp" see it as a "pro-British" proposal (which I strongly disagree with, but I'm keen to maintain momentum for the proposal). TFOWR 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)