Talk:Paperpusher's Message Board: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 04:52, 8 March 2008

Q: shouldn't TerraEsperZ and Mr Orange be added to the list of current staff? They're mods, after all. --ScissorsMacGillicutty 21:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Watchlisting this due to current edit conflicts (Cyde 22:36, 27 February 2008 (EST))

Verbiage Dispute

Editors currently taking part in the dispute over this article's verbiage, please add your comments to this section and sign your statement by placing four consecutive tildes (~). Thank you. (Cyde 02:12, 29 February 2008 (EST))
- There is no edit war. You yourself stated that this wiki is about facts. I have fixed the article to correct and oversight. --Drmike 11:30, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I have a problem with the following edits made by Drmike. The last rule generated some controversy and caused some members to leave as it was felt that it gave the staff too much leeway to interpret the rules so that they would not apply to staff. Feel free to speak for yourself, but unless you can link pages where several members stated they were leaving due to moderator/rule abuse, then you can't say "'some' members" left because of that. --Quiverwing 15:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- This is basically boiling down to a matter of semantics. If the dispute is over the use of the word 'some', that can be easily cleared up. (see definition 2a). If the dispute is, in fact, over semantics, then if DrMike left for the reason specified, then by definition, his edits are legitimate. "Some" refers to an unspecified number, not a specific number. (Cyde 23:45, 7 March 2008 (EST))

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *Editors currently taking part in the dispute over this article's verbiage, please add your comments to this section and sign your statement by placing four consecutive tildes (~).  Thank you.  ([[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 02:12, 29 February 2008 (EST))
 ** There is no edit war.  You yourself stated that this wiki is about facts.  I have fixed the article to correct and oversight.  --[[User:Drmike|Drmike]] 11:30, 29 February 2008 (EST)
+* I have a problem with the following edits made by Drmike. The last rule generated some controversy and '''caused some members to leave''' as it was felt that it gave the staff too much leeway to interpret the rules so that they would not apply to staff.'' Feel free to speak for yourself, but unless you can link pages where several members stated they were leaving due to moderator/rule abuse, then you can't say "''''some'''' members" left because of that. --[[User:Quiverwing|Quiverwing]] 15:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)
-* I have a problem with the following edits made by Drmike.
-''The last rule generated some controversy and '''caused some members to leave''' as it was felt that it gave the staff too much leeway to interpret the rules so that they would not apply to staff.''
-*Feel free to speak for yourself, but unless you can link pages where several members stated they were leaving due to moderator/rule abuse, then you can't say "''''some'''' members" left because of that. --[[User:Quiverwing|Quiverwing]] 15:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 **This is basically boiling down to a matter of semantics.  If the dispute is over the use of the word 'some', that can be [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some easily cleared up].  (see definition 2a).  If the dispute '''is''', in fact, over semantics, then if DrMike left for the reason specified, then by definition, his edits are legitimate.  "Some" refers to an ''unspecified'' number, not a specific number. ([[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 23:45, 7 March 2008 (EST))