User talk:Richard Jensen: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Civil: new section) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Reapproval of Nathanael Greene: hmmm you're the first since subpages!) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:::The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST) | :::The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST) | ||
::::well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST) | ::::well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:::::Hehe, the policy is the same, but obviously the procedure changes, hmmm. I'll follow up on your try and we'll write it as we go. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:28, 8 January 2008 (CST) | |||
== Civil == | == Civil == | ||
Revision as of 23:28, 8 January 2008
You're cleaned up
I moved everything to your Archive 2. --D. Matt Innis 21:42, 7 January 2008 (CST)
"Analysis" re:John Edwards
Richard; if it is indeed an analysis then I would recommend backing up this "analysis" with evidence that supports the conclusions rather than just blindly reinstating hyperbole. --Robert W King 10:01, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- Robert, please read the Talk page and the many citations given there. Do you argue that Edwards did NOT change style since 2000??? If so you are defying the experts and you need to find an expert that backs your theory. Richard Jensen 10:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)
Reapproval of Nathanael Greene
The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --Todd Coles 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- yes it's OK by me, but I don't know what the re-approval procedure is? what do we do? Richard Jensen 23:04, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --D. Matt Innis 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. Richard Jensen 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- Hehe, the policy is the same, but obviously the procedure changes, hmmm. I'll follow up on your try and we'll write it as we go. --D. Matt Innis 23:28, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- well not quite. the new draft page says it is "Approved article: approved by editor(s) according to our process" when the new draft in fact is not yet approved. Richard Jensen 23:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- The re-approval procedure is exactly the same as the approval process. --D. Matt Innis 23:07, 8 January 2008 (CST)
Civil
Insults or personal attacks, on talk pages or other open forums, that are relatively mild, but which are still objectionable on grounds that they aggressively impugn the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources. --D. Matt Innis 23:25, 8 January 2008 (CST)