| abstract
| - Please add to the list as you see fit. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 05:31, 4 November 2007 (CET) Why is this needed? Do we really need a policy for the blatantly obvious? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 13:03, 4 November 2007 (CET) Yes. — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 22:38, 4 November 2007 (CET) /agree. --- Image:Monk-icon-Ressmonkey.JPG Ressmonkey (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2007 (CET) Like Grinch said, this is completely and utterly unnecesary as it states something that's so blatently obvious. That being said, what it does say is correct, so I don't see any harm in moving this to an actual policy as opposed to a failed proposal.Bob fregman 01:03, 27 November 2007 (CET) I see harm in it. It risks creating a precedent that sysops need policy to say they can delete things quickly to be able to do so. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 16:52, 28 December 2007 (EST) Add note saying "this is not intended to set a precendent for what sysops choose to delete quickly, but merely to inform users what qualifies as a canidate for speedy deletion". — Rapta Image:Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (EST) PvX:WIZARDBOY777 anyone? --Image:GoD Sig3.jpgGuildofDeals 16:49, 22 January 2008 (EST) I say PvX:WIZZARD (Wizzardboy777 seems tad too long...)PheNaxKian (T/c) Image:Phenaxkian sig phoenix.jpg 16:52, 22 January 2008 (EST) *Wizard -- Armond WarbladeImage:Armond sig image.png{{sysop}} 23:09, 22 January 2008 (EST) You guys can say its the blatanty obvious, but ive recently had a decent build just deleted straight away, with no notification, reason, or anything. I want to know who did it and why... the build was R/A Scavenger's Blossom Lukejohnson 12:31, 6 March 2008 (EST) A ranger with daggers I guess? These r pretty bad. Image:Image-Dark Morphon's Siggie.jpgDark Morphon(contribs) 13:43, 19 March 2008 (EDT) Not needed because in short, admins follow this policy anyway. Current list is blatantly obvious and those things when tagged are often deleted within an hour in my experience. Above user complaint is irrelevant as that specific incident comes under PvX:WELL anyway. We have a lot of policies "under consideration" at the moment, is it time to move some of them to failed? - Image:Miserysig1.jpgisery -TALK 09:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT) I'd like to see the policy minus the "whenever administrators deem fit" part. I know that people do stupid stuff but imo power goes to the head pretty fast on the internet in general.Under Gunned 17:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT) Read PvX:ADMIN, Administrators are already empowered to delete a page (or do quite a bit of other things for that matter) on a whim if they so desire. Of course, they can be overruled/challenged, I'm merely pointing out that "whenever administrators deem fit" is how we essentially run things at the moment, and it has worked pretty well. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT) Oh okay, this probobly isn't really needed then. It would be nice if there could be some kind of reasoning/notification that occures when stuff gets bombed though tbh. atm ppl have to fish through the recent changes if they want to find the person they need to contact in order to find out why I build was nuked/WELLed as Lukejohnson mentioned.Under Gunned 22:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)