5,274
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: +
→Delete, really?
:I already did. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I already did. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Since all such "deletion discussions", when they involve the pet projects of sysops, inevitably end in the banning of any and all who bring up the issue for "talk, talk, talk" or "trolling" or any of the other numerous excuses sysops use to bully other users, what pray tell would be the point in that? If you think these articles aren't encyclopaedic, you delete them. You have the power, use it to actually improve the tone of the project. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 09:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Since all such "deletion discussions", when they involve the pet projects of sysops, inevitably end in the banning of any and all who bring up the issue for "talk, talk, talk" or "trolling" or any of the other numerous excuses sysops use to bully other users, what pray tell would be the point in that? If you think these articles aren't encyclopaedic, you delete them. You have the power, use it to actually improve the tone of the project. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 09:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Please assume good faith. That is not how deletion discussions work. I am not going to unilateraly delete an article, much less one that has existed for quite some time. Be polite and civil, make good and concise arguments, try to gain support, and if consensus is clearly against you be prepared to let it go. If you do these things, you will not be blocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
==Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler==
==Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler==
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)