User talk:JamboQueen: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
JamboQueen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
JamboQueen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Kindly observe the following == |
== Kindly observe the following == |
||
:'''In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve [[WP:CON|consensus]] ([[WP: |
:'''In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve [[WP:CON|consensus]] ([[WP:CAN]]) '''. - If the general notice written on a talk page did not include any reference, tone or words that could be interpreted as trying to influence the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate canvasing cannot be established. Thank you for your kind attention. --[[User:JamboQueen|JamboQueen]] ([[User talk:JamboQueen#top|talk]]) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:49, 19 March 2013
A kitten for you!
Thanks for helping to edit List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave.
Bearian (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Kindly observe the following
- In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus (WP:CAN) . - If the general notice written on a talk page did not include any reference, tone or words that could be interpreted as trying to influence the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate canvasing cannot be established. Thank you for your kind attention. --JamboQueen (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)