Content deleted Content added
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:::Kevin, I may have missed it, but can you point us to a URL featuring the request please? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
:::Kevin, I may have missed it, but can you point us to a URL featuring the request please? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::To what purpose? [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
::::To what purpose? [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Well we have been experiencing a number of edits which seem to do nothing other than impersonate User:Tennis expert recently. I'm uncertain as to how you validated that the request came from the user in question. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:09, 17 July 2009
- Flagged revs - Erik says no
Not done
- Flagged protection - patrolled revs - maybe later?
Not done
- Semi-protect BLP's - trying hard but
Not done
- Delete unsourced BLPs -
Not done
- A working and accountable system of governance
Unlikely but at least it is being discussed.
Why the blanking of "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert"?
I would like to know why you made this edit at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert? At the bottom of that page used to be the words "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate". Those words seem pointless if the entire page is blanked. I, for one, would like the page to be reinstated please. HWV258 04:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As my edit summary said, it was by request of the subject. You can easily see the content in the history, as I'm sure you know. Kevin (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a second—why should that request automatically get carried out? As I'm sure you're aware, that discussion is now hidden in the history and is not easy for other people to find. Tennis Expert did the crime, so it is important for others to be able to find out the history of the issue without digging. I repeat that I don't see the point of "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate" closely followed by blanking the page. Exactly what is the problem with leaving the page? HWV258 06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing at TE is no longer here, there is no importance whatsoever in others being able to find out the history. With all this talk of "crimes", I might start thinking this is some kind of personal vendetta. Good thing we have WP:AGF and all that. Kevin (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously weren't on the receiving end of TE's actions. So many of us poor unfortunates were—and never forget that there's a reason for his sanctions. So am I to understand from your point above that I can get my original request addressed if TE decides to reappear (at any time in the future)? (Still waiting to hear why it hurts to leave the page—especially if TE is no longer active) HWV258 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just caught your change on my watchlist. Your edit summary suggests the request was made by Tennis expert. May I ask when you were contacted and what reason was given? The user still has all of his editing rights intact, and I'm certain if he had removed it himself, it would have been reverted in seconds flat. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The request was made over at WR, earlier today. There was no particular reason given, but it was probably prompted by some of User:Kelly Martin's user pages being deleted. Kevin (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't get... WR meaning Wikipedia Review? If that's the case, what's that got to do with us? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's right. They have nothing to do with us, except that I saw the request there, and felt it was appropriate to act on it. I would have done the same no matter how I came to be aware of the request. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I won't even bother to look, and will take your word for it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's right. They have nothing to do with us, except that I saw the request there, and felt it was appropriate to act on it. I would have done the same no matter how I came to be aware of the request. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- "The request was made over at WR, earlier today". I'm sorry, but I'm not following the link between User:Kelly Martin and User:Tennis expert. Could you please provide the diff of the request? Thanks. HWV258 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't get... WR meaning Wikipedia Review? If that's the case, what's that got to do with us? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The request was made over at WR, earlier today. There was no particular reason given, but it was probably prompted by some of User:Kelly Martin's user pages being deleted. Kevin (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just caught your change on my watchlist. Your edit summary suggests the request was made by Tennis expert. May I ask when you were contacted and what reason was given? The user still has all of his editing rights intact, and I'm certain if he had removed it himself, it would have been reverted in seconds flat. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously weren't on the receiving end of TE's actions. So many of us poor unfortunates were—and never forget that there's a reason for his sanctions. So am I to understand from your point above that I can get my original request addressed if TE decides to reappear (at any time in the future)? (Still waiting to hear why it hurts to leave the page—especially if TE is no longer active) HWV258 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing at TE is no longer here, there is no importance whatsoever in others being able to find out the history. With all this talk of "crimes", I might start thinking this is some kind of personal vendetta. Good thing we have WP:AGF and all that. Kevin (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- When you say "You can easily see the content in the history...", are you saying that WP's search facility can find things in the history (e.g. in non-current text)? If not, then your point is moot as it would only be people who know about TE's past who could find it. Would anyone, say, that gets annoyed by TE's future actions (and he's entitled to reappear at any time) be able to (easily) search for TE's track record and find it? HWV258 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- If TE reappears then it's a different story. Right now, there is no value in keeping the page unblanked. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As you have failed to address my question, I have to repeat that there is value as "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate" is no longer relevant. HWV258 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- If TE reappears then it's a different story. Right now, there is no value in keeping the page unblanked. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a second—why should that request automatically get carried out? As I'm sure you're aware, that discussion is now hidden in the history and is not easy for other people to find. Tennis Expert did the crime, so it is important for others to be able to find out the history of the issue without digging. I repeat that I don't see the point of "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate" closely followed by blanking the page. Exactly what is the problem with leaving the page? HWV258 06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the original edit has been undone. I support that action. Please note that that's two editors who believe that the evidence in this case should remain visible. I'm happy to discuss it further, but I request that the page remains visible during the discussion and subsequent RfC (if necessary). HWV258 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You want an RfC on the blanking of an RfC? This is just hilarious. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I don't want that. Whether we get there though is up to the actions of others now. HWV258 05:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Kevin, I may have missed it, but can you point us to a URL featuring the request please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- To what purpose? Kevin (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well we have been experiencing a number of edits which seem to do nothing other than impersonate User:Tennis expert recently. I'm uncertain as to how you validated that the request came from the user in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- To what purpose? Kevin (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Kevin, I may have missed it, but can you point us to a URL featuring the request please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I don't want that. Whether we get there though is up to the actions of others now. HWV258 05:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)