Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/L0b0t


 * COMMENT from user:L0b0t: WP:TALK pertains to article talk pages, user talk pages are covered by WP:USER which states in part:"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

Comment from LobOt

 * Comment from user:L0b0t: WP:TALK pertains to article talk pages, user talk pages are covered by WP:USER which states in part:"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

I moved this here because its inappropriate to edit into someonelses grounds for an RFC. Use the space below where it says Response. Oh, I see you you already did. Then I think you have said what you wanted. --Spartaz 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Procedural objection?
L0b0t apparently believes it's not proper for me to certify, since I only tried to resolve this dispute recently. I don't see that this objection holds water, but more importantly, I'm disappointed that we're seeing discussion of "the rules" rather than the issue at hand. Anyway, I did (very recently) try and fail to resolve this dispute, because I saw that some of the diffs provided showed ample evidence that he's using the term "vandalism" far too loosely. Friday (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've certified the dispute. Perhapses we can now move on to the real issue here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)