→Notice: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
→Be patient: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Be patient == |
|||
Hey, just wanted to say don't worry about the inflation reduction act article changes. Specifico is correct in noting that the for letter has both consensus and has been in the article for a while. The only way the RFC would affect that is if a new consensus to exclude came out of the RfC (not likely) or if we get a consensus where to include the content. Thus they are right to keep the content in. While it certainly looks like the RfC will result in a consensus to include the against letter, the idea of the RfC process is too wait for it to complete before evaluating consensus. While sometimes SNOW or a capitulation of the minority side does result in an early consensus, there is no harm in waiting for the RfC to be closed before making the change. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:32, 27 September 2022
Discretionary sanctions notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Be patient
Hey, just wanted to say don't worry about the inflation reduction act article changes. Specifico is correct in noting that the for letter has both consensus and has been in the article for a while. The only way the RFC would affect that is if a new consensus to exclude came out of the RfC (not likely) or if we get a consensus where to include the content. Thus they are right to keep the content in. While it certainly looks like the RfC will result in a consensus to include the against letter, the idea of the RfC process is too wait for it to complete before evaluating consensus. While sometimes SNOW or a capitulation of the minority side does result in an early consensus, there is no harm in waiting for the RfC to be closed before making the change. Springee (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)