1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + +
Conservapedia talk:Teamwork (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, April 6, 2007
, 23:16, April 6, 2007no edit summary
In the interests of transparency, I would like to suggest Bureaucrats and Sysop's add their designation to their sig lines. Not for self-aggrandizement as one user has suggested, but as a means to let users know who is giving suggestions or instruction. Users deserve to know, IMO, exactly who is speaking to them, and what their interests are, who can block them, and who cannot. It is only fair, and we can't expect everyone to go looking up all participants. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
In the interests of transparency, I would like to suggest Bureaucrats and Sysop's add their designation to their sig lines. Not for self-aggrandizement as one user has suggested, but as a means to let users know who is giving suggestions or instruction. Users deserve to know, IMO, exactly who is speaking to them, and what their interests are, who can block them, and who cannot. It is only fair, and we can't expect everyone to go looking up all participants. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Should it matter who can block a person and not when speaking to a person? Or is this a matter of intimidation "I am saying this and if you argue with me you will be blocked"? Each person is ultimately due the same amount of respect as any other. If something is getting out of hand, then isn't a warning on the user page ''first'' more appropriate than the suggestion that arguing with a sysop is enough? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)