Difference between revisions of "User talk:Nonsensical"
Nonsensical (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
wow! amazing work on the new CS faculty pages! [[User:Foobar|Foobar]] 02:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT) | wow! amazing work on the new CS faculty pages! [[User:Foobar|Foobar]] 02:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :hehe, thanks. I knew that Stephen Edwards McDonalds story just ''had'' to be on here. --[[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 02:42, 12 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:42, 12 July 2007
|
PrezBo Award | |
| For your many excellent contributions! And especially the list of clubs that need articles! − Reaganaut 20:15, 19 May 2007 (EDT) |
I rolled back your removal of Tao Tan's credit on a number of articles. This isn't Wikipedia and there's never been any explicit agreement to assume we follow Wikipedia policies. Several administrators felt that Tao deserved credit as the articles represent his original research. Regarding NPOV, pet theories, etc., these are allowed here. We can discuss these policies and specific articles (on talk pages) but do not assume wikipedia rules. Feinstein 17:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you follow your own rules?
From the WikiCU help page: " Complaints about an article
Wikipedia doesn't censor content. Neither does WikiCU. Occasionally someone will post stuff that others don't like. This might include slander or unnecessarily personal information. You are welcome to remove this content yourself by editing the article."
How can you just delete a created page. And why do admins get to dictate what is funny? The Matt Sanchez page and Erica Jackson page aren't very funny and they seem like attack pages as well. Why aren't those deleted but pages that are about admins are? It's not fair and you guys don't even play by your own rules.
wow! amazing work on the new CS faculty pages! Foobar 02:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
- hehe, thanks. I knew that Stephen Edwards McDonalds story just had to be on here. --Nonsensical 02:42, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
