It's unlikely that any utterly fresh new insights on this topic are going to come to light.
Many have expressed their own points of view with great clarify. Danny has been party to the discussion and he has either heard and understood these points of view, or he has not. Either way, it is unlikely that further reiteration will change that much.
Similarly, the discussion may or may not influence his future activities, but whatever that influence may be, it is probably complete, and extending the discussion will probably not have much affect on his future actions.
I suggest the topic be put to rest.
wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
It's unlikely that any utterly fresh new insights on this topic are going to come to light.
Many have expressed their own points of view with great clarify. Danny has been party to the discussion and he has either heard and understood these points of view, or he has not. Either way, it is unlikely that further reiteration will change that much.
Similarly, the discussion may or may not influence his future activities, but whatever that influence may be, it is probably complete, and extending the discussion will probably not have much affect on his future actions.
I suggest the topic be put to rest.
Well, I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:
If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.
I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.
Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into conventional editing territory now.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of
this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:
If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.
I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.
Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into conventional editing territory now.
I don't know if that will be acceptable; it sounds too much like common sense. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I'd still like to see some actual policy clarification come out of
this. For exmaple, [[Wikipedia:Office Actions]] says:
If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.
I think it would be better at this point to declare that Dannyisme and Dannyisme _alone_ is the Office account, and that nobody should have any obligation to double-check whether a plain old Danny action is Office-related. If Danny subsequently accidentally uses the wrong account for an edit it'd be his bad, not anyone else's, and nobody should be at risk of a surprise thwacking for reverting it. Or even better, also change the Dannyisme account to some less ambiguous name like [[User:Office Action]] to divest it of its "Dannyness" entirely.
Just kicking around some ideas for how to prevent future problems along these lines, since [[Fleshlight]] itself appears to be heading back into conventional editing territory now.
I don't know if that will be acceptable; it sounds too much like common sense. :-)
Well, I don't want this to just vanish into the ether. I guess I'll take it up on the Office Actions page itself when I've got a little time this evening.