Talk:Main Page
From Wikireligion
(Difference between revisions)
(Religious community?) |
(→Religious community?) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
I noticed a new header on the [[Main page]] labeling wikireligion as a "A free religious encyclopedia and community". What is meant by "religious community" here? While I'd love to help build a "high quality encyclopedia on religion and philosophy", I have little desire to join a "religious community". What is this place? [[User:Qwerty|Qwerty]] 13:13, 17 March 2007 (EST) | I noticed a new header on the [[Main page]] labeling wikireligion as a "A free religious encyclopedia and community". What is meant by "religious community" here? While I'd love to help build a "high quality encyclopedia on religion and philosophy", I have little desire to join a "religious community". What is this place? [[User:Qwerty|Qwerty]] 13:13, 17 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ::I took that part out. I found that to be a little odd also. Peace:) --[[User:Sir James Paul|Sir James Paul]] 17:31, 17 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:31, 17 March 2007
voting
Here is a list of things we are to vote for or against.
- Wikireligion will have no Arbcom or council.
- Admins may do what they see fit.
- Members are to cut off comunications with people who are here to harm the encyclopedia.
- There is not to be a Esperanza or any group that has a leadership.
- In the first year it will take 50% support votes to become a sysop.
- After this it will take 75.
- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules will be in effect here.
- This is just a basic list of things. I am sure I will come up with more and so will others. Vote below the line.
- Support --Sir James Paul 17:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, um, I thought you were letting RyGuy run this place. And each of these should be voted on separately, no?? Seven of nine 17:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- No, they don't have to. ForestH2 09:54, 12 March 2007 (EST)
Support Number 3 does include Seven of nine. That's excatly what he is. I highly suggest we block him indefinite. He is the rudest person I've ever met. I disagree with Number 1. I have even thought about starting an ArbCom case or something on Seven of nine. ForestH2 19:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- And rudeness is now a reason for indefinite blocking. Lovely. See how quickly you revert back to your old ways...reminds me of Wikikids....unbelievable. Seven of nine 20:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, yeah of course. If your rude your blocked. And you are. ForestH2 20:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, you just removed my own comments from my own talk page, so perhaps you should be blocked as well. Seven of nine 20:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, because their rude and there against policy. You know when an admin shows up, they have every right to block you. ForestH2 20:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- ("they're" not "their") And how is calling something "silly" being rude. It is my opinion. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't make it rude. Grow up, dude. Seven of nine 20:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- It's not recent silliness, it's people accusing you of being rude. ForestH2 20:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- ("they're" not "their") And how is calling something "silly" being rude. It is my opinion. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't make it rude. Grow up, dude. Seven of nine 20:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, because their rude and there against policy. You know when an admin shows up, they have every right to block you. ForestH2 20:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, you just removed my own comments from my own talk page, so perhaps you should be blocked as well. Seven of nine 20:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, yeah of course. If your rude your blocked. And you are. ForestH2 20:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Support Everything but Number 1. In some cases, there may need to be an ArbCom. ForestH2 09:54, 12 March 2007 (EST)
- uh, #1 already says there won't be an ArbCom. --Seven of nine 21:48, 13 March 2007 (EST)
- Support even though it won't make the slightest bit of difference. This policy would solve your problems, but unfortunately you all seem to find ways to ignore common sense and just go ahead and start arguing again. In a small project where you simply do not have the resources to deal with disruptive users, anybody that refuses to change is normally banned, instantly, with no official rulings. It's just done by a single admin, very little discussion and no quoting policies. You're in an impossible situation now, as currently almost the entire community is causing disruption. And as soon as anyone actually does the right thing, you all moan at them because there isn't a specific paragraph in the policy that authorises the use of common sense in a situation. Archer7 13:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- FWIW, I agree with Archer. Perhaps it is just best for folks to start creating articles rather than wrangle over policy minutiae. --Qwerty 14:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- Support All I agree with all of these suggestions, and unless anyone objects, I will put them into effect. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 March 2007 (EST)
Software updates
If anyone has any software updates or features they request please let me know and I will deal with it. ForestH2 09:43, 12 March 2007 (EST)
Religious community?
I noticed a new header on the Main page labeling wikireligion as a "A free religious encyclopedia and community". What is meant by "religious community" here? While I'd love to help build a "high quality encyclopedia on religion and philosophy", I have little desire to join a "religious community". What is this place? Qwerty 13:13, 17 March 2007 (EST)
- I took that part out. I found that to be a little odd also. Peace:) --Sir James Paul 17:31, 17 March 2007 (EST)
