Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
||
: I wouldn't exactly call it general dislike. He has been warned time after time after time that he needs to be NPOV, and that he needs to stop instantly reverting changes he doesn't like. To go any further than that is to split hairs. [[User:Ambivalenthysteria|Ambivalenthysteria]] 08:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
: I wouldn't exactly call it general dislike. He has been warned time after time after time that he needs to be NPOV, and that he needs to stop instantly reverting changes he doesn't like. To go any further than that is to split hairs. [[User:Ambivalenthysteria|Ambivalenthysteria]] 08:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
||
Does it?<br> |
|||
See: [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls#When_is_a_quickpoll_allowed?]]<br> |
|||
Which alternative is the appostrophed?<br> |
|||
See: [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Current_polls]]<br> |
|||
ChrisO writes: ''"with four reversions yesterday"''<br> |
|||
which I understand as him calling for a Quickpoll for banning due to breach of the three revert policy, and then it's a neccessary precondition that the user has been explecitely informed of the rule and the danger he is in, and <u>then</u> given a fair chance to improve <u>with respect to the three revert rule</u>. As far as I understand, this has not been accomplished. Please correct me if I am wrong.<br> |
|||
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:35, 27 March 2004
Have you had a look at Trams in Melbourne, Australia? PMA 05:09, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I've taken a look at it, and updated an outdated section. I'll do some more later. Ambivalenthysteria Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Zoran Zivkovic (politician)
You left a note in the talk for Zoran Zivkovic (politician) that you would rewrite it after the copyvio was resolved. I have deleted the copyright violation if you would like to recreate the article. - Texture 15:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I'll get to it ASAP. Ambivalenthysteria 03:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I made you a MediaWiki box for Pulitzer Prizes by year, so you don't have to incorporate all that text into other Pulitzer Prize articles. Just type or copy {{msg:PulitzerPrizes}}. See the 1917 entry for an example. Hope it helps. Danny 12:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you very much. This'll come in handy. Would it be possible to add 2004 in as well? Those awards are due in a couple of weeks, so I'll need to add them too. Ambivalenthysteria 12:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Three revert rule
...but the Quickpoll scheme is, as far as I am concerned, intended to put power behind the three-revert rule, not to express general dislike.
You see what I mean?
--Ruhrjung 08:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call it general dislike. He has been warned time after time after time that he needs to be NPOV, and that he needs to stop instantly reverting changes he doesn't like. To go any further than that is to split hairs. Ambivalenthysteria 08:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does it?
See: Wikipedia:Quickpolls#When_is_a_quickpoll_allowed?
Which alternative is the appostrophed?
See: Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Current_polls
ChrisO writes: "with four reversions yesterday"
which I understand as him calling for a Quickpoll for banning due to breach of the three revert policy, and then it's a neccessary precondition that the user has been explecitely informed of the rule and the danger he is in, and then given a fair chance to improve with respect to the three revert rule. As far as I understand, this has not been accomplished. Please correct me if I am wrong.
--Ruhrjung 08:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)