User talk:AgentChieftain/January 2009

Erepublik Profile Biography · Contributions · Discussion · Favorites · Projects · Sandbox · Signature · Userpage

Feedback

Wiki Rewards

eRepublik Official Wiki:Rewards --Admin 19:37, 15 December 2008 (EET)

Your opinion?

We would like to know your opinion about the CPT in this discussion. Thanks for your support! --Admin 20:28, 6 January 2009 (EET)

Huh?

I don't really see the purpose behind this edit, it breaks the format and doesn't really serve any purpose, as far as I can tell. Do you mind explaining?
If you're trying to get rid of a red link, I would advise against it, just to show that the dispute did take place and is not a fictitious entry intended to discredit someone else (As I explained to QJ here. I'm open to changing the format of the page if you have any ideas. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:19, 6 January 2009 (EET)

"Criteria for Addition" - "Examples of their violations" (we suggest you also write what is the exact rules which were not respected in each case).

"Criteria for Removal" - "An old entry of an inactive vandal;" - very vague - exactly how old must be the edit in order to be removed from there?

"Completely improper, incorrect or malicious (False report), incomplete or totally incoherent." - who decides if an "addition" to the page is a false report or not?

We also suggest that you remove all the red links and on each of them, you write exactly the reason for deletion.

--Admin 11:59, 12 January 2009 (EET)

Alright, I'll make the changes immediately. I'll link to the deleted pages with the full URL to remove the red links, and I'll get started with adding descriptions of the edits that were made.

As for who decides on the false reports, I figured that you and the Sysop team would be able to do this. This could be divided among each of the sysops (Like MiniBill's suspect edits, or shared via a page at whichever namespace you choose. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:04, 12 January 2009 (EET)

I've finished making all of the changes you've requested, and I await your opinion of the way I've formatted the details of the offenses. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 22:01, 12 January 2009 (EET)

We have another suggestion - to pages that already exist - you can write links to the exact changes that you consider vandalism.

Also, we would like to remind you of these paragraphs from WP:LONG:

“ Users listed should have a marked past of policy violations well before and after their final, indefinite, block. User accounts that are listed as vandals but only have minor blocks, or "major vandals"/"sockpuppets" that aren't blocked indefinitely, will likely be removed. ”

“ This page is not for dealing with two sided edit-wars, only one-sided vandalism. ”

Therefore, we consider the name Long term abuse page' not correct. We suggest you change the terminology used.

And our final idea is that you were part or you have sustained one of the parties involved in these debates (as a Dioist). Therefore, without the involvement of QJ Lincoln and miniBill in this project, we will not support it fully.

May you contribute much and well! --Admin 17:04, 13 January 2009 (EET)

I see. I've asked QJ for her input before ([1]), and I believe she approved of the page in it's current form. I'll ask MiniBill about adding yours truly to the list, since I don't recall breaking the rules when handling these cases. The only others I could think of are User:JohnDaker, User:Siclo, and User:Gigglyomicron, and perhaps User:ma1kel.

Also, what do you have in mind for the name for the page? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 17:54, 13 January 2009 (EET)

We will give you an answer in a few days regarding this question.

Earlier, we wanted to state that, besides us, no other contributor offered you complete feedback (not even QJ Lincoln or miniBill) regarding this project and this is the reason why we will not support it fully for the moment. May you contribute much and well! --Admin 18:04, 13 January 2009 (EET)

On an unrelated note, mind explaining your rationale behind deleting Embed? I've provided heaps of evidence for everything we are claiming, and I'm sure you can attest to the veracity of these statements since you're the one moderating our shenanigans. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:19, 6 January 2009 (EET)

We have not deleted Embed. We have moved it out of Main space because no contributor was showing any signs that the page will be improved. --Admin 11:45, 12 January 2009 (EET)

I figured this out a bit after leaving the comment. Good to see that the page has improved enough to be back in the Main space. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:04, 12 January 2009 (EET)

Discussion

bar

Please archive December discussion that are closed. (please retain open ones, especially the one about you-know-who)--Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 16:46, 2 January 2009 (EET)

Done. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

An idea

eRepublik Official Wiki:Bar#.22Ownage.22 - what do you think? --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 18:48, 11 January 2009 (EET)

I don't think my edit was an act of "ownage" in that case, but I'll leave a comment. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 18:57, 11 January 2009 (EET)

Wiki Rewards

We are waiting for your comments and proposals here: eRepublik Official Wiki:Rewards. Thanks for your support! --Admin 14:38, 13 January 2009 (EET)

Our opinion

Hello AgentChieftain,
Thank you for your message! We consider that you could have said the following statements directly to the contributor.
Regards,
The eRepublik Team. --Admin 02:26, 29 January 2009 (PST)

Template Discussion

Hi. The discussion on changing and updating templates has been moved to eRepublik Official Wiki:Bar/Debate 9‎. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 06:39, 30 January 2009 (PST)