Difference between revisions of "MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Recent undo)
(Recent undo)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
:Exactly, Karajou. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 18:28, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
 
:Exactly, Karajou. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 18:28, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
 
::Well, I think there isn't a dispute here.  So long as the blocking reasons are not cleansed for the deceitful reason of political correctness, all is good.  I didn't add half of the entries, so we need to try and remember it was other Admins who did....and the reason for the pull-down is to help make it easier, so we don't have to type repetitive entries, right?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
 
::Well, I think there isn't a dispute here.  So long as the blocking reasons are not cleansed for the deceitful reason of political correctness, all is good.  I didn't add half of the entries, so we need to try and remember it was other Admins who did....and the reason for the pull-down is to help make it easier, so we don't have to type repetitive entries, right?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
 +
:::'''Afterthought:'''  The reasons many were added, we need to remember this, is because users were complaining they couldn't even discern why they were blocked, so it was decided by Andy to make the reasons clearer, more concise.  If we trim too many reasons, we are back where we were; obtuse generalities that little reflect the true blocking reasons.  I mean we could say for 75% of the blocks, "Violation of CP Commandments and/or Guidelines".....which gives little specificity, leaving the blocked user clueless as to the reason. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:39, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:39, 30 April 2009

Wouldn't "inappropriate edit to Obama article" fall under "liberal vandalism"? LiamG 11:52, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but more specific.--Aschlafly 12:06, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Ok LiamG 12:49, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we kill the "Obama" thing now that the article is on lockdown and noone outside of the inner sanctum can edit it? --DReynolds 22:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Typo

Just wanted you to know of a tiny typo, it should be vulgar instead of vuglar.--jpatt 17:18, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Jp. Fixed. --DeanStalk 23:20, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Recent undo

It is irritating navigating through 35 block reasons, while some points are almost equal to others. Jallen 21:17, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Yes, I am sure it is irritating to a young person demanding instant gratification, and never communicating. I made the note I was editing, removing and consolidating, and wasn't done before you jumped in, seconds after I made the first change...I received notification of urgent update needed to Norton 360 and Windows at the same time! What is a person to do, but stop what I was doing, and do that, lol. I will get back to it ASAP, and then, if it isn't to your liking, feel free to change it, or at least propose the change. Right now, it is 7pm here, and I intend to eat me supper. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
I think the blame is on both of us (older) friend. Jallen 22:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I am certain you do feel that..... --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Well perhaps I didn't feel but I did think of it. Jallen 22:42, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I have removed several, consolidated others, hopefully you will be pleased. I tried to re-order in a logical sequence. I left the *, because sometimes its better to have it not displayed. If you still think there are too many, feel free to remove more. --₮K/Admin/Talk 03:15, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I did some changes myself, as well as Jessica, and I think we should keep the reasons as simple and direct as possible. Karajou 14:39, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Exactly, Karajou. Jallen 18:28, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, I think there isn't a dispute here. So long as the blocking reasons are not cleansed for the deceitful reason of political correctness, all is good. I didn't add half of the entries, so we need to try and remember it was other Admins who did....and the reason for the pull-down is to help make it easier, so we don't have to type repetitive entries, right? --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:33, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
Afterthought: The reasons many were added, we need to remember this, is because users were complaining they couldn't even discern why they were blocked, so it was decided by Andy to make the reasons clearer, more concise. If we trim too many reasons, we are back where we were; obtuse generalities that little reflect the true blocking reasons. I mean we could say for 75% of the blocks, "Violation of CP Commandments and/or Guidelines".....which gives little specificity, leaving the blocked user clueless as to the reason. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:39, 30 April 2009 (EDT)