User talk:ElectionJune2015/Referenda/3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson (Created page with "Suggested amendment: all relevant Editors, however inactive, should be notified unless they've actually announced their departure (or been blocked of course). ~~~~") |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Suggested amendment: all relevant Editors, however inactive, should be notified unless they've actually announced their departure (or been blocked of course). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 17:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | Suggested amendment: all relevant Editors, however inactive, should be notified unless they've actually announced their departure (or been blocked of course). [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 17:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
Another issue is the mention of general and specialist Editors. My memory, which is not infallible, says this distinction was abolished. EC: 2011-007 and EC: 2011-010 look as though they might be relevant. If no one can find a way to access these I'm not sure what could be done. Possibly the proposal might be interpreted as restoring the distinction by implication. Or maybe an avoidance-of-doubt clause should be added. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 08:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:58, 5 June 2015
Suggested amendment: all relevant Editors, however inactive, should be notified unless they've actually announced their departure (or been blocked of course). Peter Jackson (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Another issue is the mention of general and specialist Editors. My memory, which is not infallible, says this distinction was abolished. EC: 2011-007 and EC: 2011-010 look as though they might be relevant. If no one can find a way to access these I'm not sure what could be done. Possibly the proposal might be interpreted as restoring the distinction by implication. Or maybe an avoidance-of-doubt clause should be added. Peter Jackson (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)