To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power
to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is the
question. Why not do both?? :-) Or just get more assertive female admins.
A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems
To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power
to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is the
question. Why not do both?? :-) Or just get more assertive female
admins.
A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems
And to think I was strongly criticized for posting about High Noon moments
You'd make a fine administrator, and any process that would not do so is
broken. Many of us know that and talk freely about it, but we've not been
able to get far, or even get up the energy to try.
Fred
So I've been
Twice recently I have been reverted for removing vulgar jokes from
article talk pages on the English Wikipedia - most recently for removing
a joke who's punchline was A woman's anus after she was sodomized!.
Although I appreciate the use of humor on Wikipedia, and support the
inclusion of
Twice recently I have been reverted for removing vulgar jokes from
article talk pages on the English Wikipedia - most recently for removing
a joke who's punchline was A woman's anus after she was sodomized!.
Although I appreciate the use of humor on Wikipedia, and support the
inclusion of
It seems from my experience that WP:RD2 is usually interpreted fairly
narrowly, at least in the cases I've tried to use it. Specifically it
requires the material to be grossly offensive and excludes 'ordinary'
incivility. In the world of Wikipedia, grossly offensive is a pretty
high bar it
It seems from my experience that WP:RD2 is usually interpreted fairly
narrowly, at least in the cases I've tried to use it. Specifically it
requires the material to be grossly offensive and excludes 'ordinary'
incivility. In the world of Wikipedia, grossly offensive is a pretty
high bar it
