User talk:69.124.143.230

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: AfD on GuildWiki

Hi. When an afd results in a merge, it mostly just means a delayed redirect with the history of the article intact, so that whoever can merge whatever they find useful (it also means that you shouldn't have a non-redirect article there, unless something has changed about the subject). There's no binding requirement to include (or exclude) anything that is in the article, since that would be impossible to enforce, and not very practical or smart.

There really wasn't that much to merge in the article to begin with. I don't know if you looked at the article but the full text was "GuildWiki is a wiki dedicated to ArenaNet's Guild Wars MMORPG. It began on the 13th of May 2005. [1] All text of the wiki is under the GNU Free Documentation License. All users may edit it." The first sentence is obvious (since it's on the Guild Wars article), the 4th sentence is obvious to anyone who knows what a wiki is, the third sentence was merged but it was later removed by another editor (since it's not very relevant), and the second sentence would probably receive the same fate. There's nothing to stop you from adding it to the article if you feel it's useful, that's an editorial decision. - Bobet 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the help about the Removing warnings page. I didn't realize that was an archive of a discussion. So I'm going to assume it would be frowned upon to change that page at all. However, do you know of a page where an active discussion/policy reconsideration about teh subject is taking place? The page you replied to my comment seems to have become very bloated and everybody is going in circles, and I have no idea where to interject or express my opinion. Also, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and I am not sure if/how I can move the discussion into a serious consideration for a policy change. I don't know of the whole process that goes on in that side of the Wikipedia project, so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. 69.124.143.230 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if it would be bad to add a comment, but it is not a page of live discussion where any sort of change is going to happen. For that matter neither is the page you posted on. This issue has been going round and round for a few months and there are a variety of opinions. Current policy says that removing such warnings is "generally prohibited". It is a rule that should be gently, not harshly enforced but that tends to be an individual thing with different administrators. There has been no concensus regarding this policy, but the closest thing to a concensus (between 66% and 82% of a "vote") was that warnings should not be quickly reverted by the person being warned.

The idea behind not removing warnings has the following purposes:

  1. It serves as a notice to Vandal Reverters if someone is an ongoing problem. It helps them to identify that person quickly and take action. Note that generally, though not always, at least 3 warnings are required for a block.
  2. It serves as a notice to the rest of the community that the editor may have some bad habits.
  3. It creates a bright awareness in the mind of the editor regarding certain rules.

In my opinion, no one will object if, after a period of good edits without conflict, you remove the warning. How long is "a period"? I do not know, but I would think that the least amount of time would be a week. It may be somewhere between a week and a month.

I suggest you create a sign-in name, because people are suspicious of anon ip editors. Its not that things are alot easier that way, but you get less squinty eyed examination of your edits. --Blue Tie 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove the warning now. There was nothing wrong with the edit you made to the page in question. The initial warning and restoration of it was abusive harassment and you shouldn't have to tolerate it. Go forth and edit in peace. --CBD 19:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)