What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment

MsCC93
topic
08:06:40 PM Feb 11th 2013
Is it me, or are some people only using this tag to excuse deleting things that conflict with their own views?
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:28:05 AM Feb 22nd 2013
Possibly yes. Bring it up in Ask The Tropers if it happens.
Craver357
topic
04:56:00 AM Jul 25th 2012
edited by Craver357
Why is considered over the line of ROCEJ to call Real Life people Jerkass Woobies?
MsCC93
08:05:35 PM Feb 11th 2013
Because it would just lead to flame wars and natter talking about which jerkass is sympathetic and which one is not.
TwoGunAngel
topic
05:19:47 PM Jun 3rd 2012
This should not be cutlisted. Move it to Administrivia if you must, but outright cutting it is out of the question.
Prfnoff
11:50:30 AM Oct 15th 2012
Some troper with no edit history is trying to cut this again.
ArcadesSabboth
07:48:12 PM Oct 17th 2012
edited by ArcadesSabboth
This probably should be in Administrivia.
Ironeye
moderator
11:56:15 AM Oct 20th 2012
Yeah, this isn't going to get cut. If someone wants to move it to Administrivia, I don't object, but the existing page needs to remain a redirect.
Renelia
topic
01:47:48 AM May 17th 2012
If someone incorrectly pot holes or sink holes this page into an article, should it be removed? The reason why I'm asking is because it's already linked on the left sidebar, causing a bit of redundancy.
Renelia
12:33:58 AM Jul 2nd 2012
Seeing as there's still some potholing/sinkholing problems with this page, what should be done? Should it be moved to Administrivia?
Telcontar
moderator
12:57:44 AM Jul 2nd 2012
The page should probably be in Administrivia/, with this as a redirect. However, I wouldn't remove the notices from articles — the sidebar link is easy to miss, and some pages require the extra reminder.
lacusness
topic
09:49:58 PM Jan 13th 2012
'Ninety-nine percent of the wiki are not looking for a fight.'

What's the one percent?
AMNK
03:57:57 AM Jan 18th 2012
Trolls and people who refuse to be civil.
SotiCoto
02:53:09 AM May 17th 2012
edited by SotiCoto
Someonebesidesomeone
topic
03:53:28 PM Feb 1st 2011
I think we should be able to put any example we consider good or fitting, after all this page is not a forum or a discuss page(except this specific one of course), so it won't be any trouble about a example.
TheAppleFreak
topic
06:38:44 AM Jan 24th 2011
As a GrammarNazi, I think it should be pointed out that the opening line should be "99% of the wiki IS not looking for a fight," not ARE. I'd fix this, but the page is locked, so...
SeptimusHeap
moderator
02:40:53 PM Nov 21st 2011
edited by SeptimusHeap
You can ask it here.

SotiCoto
03:05:46 AM May 17th 2012
I'd say the problem lies in the words "the wiki", rather than the "is"/"are" divide. The sentence refers to the users of this site, so rewording it to imply the site itself operates as a single, independent unit doesn't strike me as a great plan.
TheOneWhoTropes
06:02:19 AM Jun 4th 2012
edited by TheOneWhoTropes
It's actually different in American and British English. In American English, you can say IS in cases where in British English, you would say ARE. Since both are used on the Wiki, either can do, as long as the rest of the article is written in the same grammar. I see no problem with "99% of the wiki are not looking for a fight." Please don't correct British English to American English or vice versa, unless the article has two types of grammar and/or spelling in it.
billybobfred
topic
08:30:19 PM Jun 10th 2010
Would it be accurate to say that this is not a wiki policy ("Do not post flame bait") as much as it is an observation ("If you post flame bait, someone will delete it")?
mailedbypostman
07:45:40 PM Jul 21st 2010
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
SotiCoto
03:01:15 AM May 17th 2012
More accurately, if you post something that offends someone prone to pro-actively defending their own beliefs, irrespective of intent, it will be deleted. Then lower down it discourages actually doing this... as though things should just vanish on their own.

In short... it seems to be trying to discourage posting anything remotely unusual or off-the-beaten-track on the grounds that it will just get deleted anyway.
kingoflocks
06:06:29 AM Apr 13th 2014
edited by 2.26.102.6
.
back to Main/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy