Talk:Globality
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Locke Cole in topic Restored paid contributions tag
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Globality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Restored paid contributions tag
[edit]The tag was placed with an explanation in the edit history and no review or changes were made since then, so I am restoring it. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- ... uhhh, what....? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You removed the tag from a huge swath of articles without any review whatsoever other than seeing a lack of talk page discussion, which, as was explained numerous times, does not mandate removal because it is not possible in some cases for evidence and discussion to be on-wiki. Upon reviewing the contribution history, I have restored the tag. Unforgettableid added it with a rationale, and I invite that editor to come here and explain it, privately to me in email if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're deliberately lying or just being obtuse, but I've linked to the diff where it was added, and it was standard boilerplate Twinkle-verbiage, there was no rationale provided on the talk page. If no explanation is given, ANY editor (hi, I'm an editor) may remove the tag as it was used inappropriately. Have a good day! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not the one being obtuse. The diff explaining the addition is here, not the one you linked. Explanation was given. It does not need to be on the talk page, and you are not privy to the background that led to the conclusion resulting in the tag. I am restoring the tag once again. You have been disruptive enough with these removals, please stop once and for all. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don't use that tag because someone suspects another editor is paid. You should identify what is needing cleanup in the article and tag it appropriately. Have a great day! —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am not the one being obtuse. The diff explaining the addition is here, not the one you linked. Explanation was given. It does not need to be on the talk page, and you are not privy to the background that led to the conclusion resulting in the tag. I am restoring the tag once again. You have been disruptive enough with these removals, please stop once and for all. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're deliberately lying or just being obtuse, but I've linked to the diff where it was added, and it was standard boilerplate Twinkle-verbiage, there was no rationale provided on the talk page. If no explanation is given, ANY editor (hi, I'm an editor) may remove the tag as it was used inappropriately. Have a good day! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- You removed the tag from a huge swath of articles without any review whatsoever other than seeing a lack of talk page discussion, which, as was explained numerous times, does not mandate removal because it is not possible in some cases for evidence and discussion to be on-wiki. Upon reviewing the contribution history, I have restored the tag. Unforgettableid added it with a rationale, and I invite that editor to come here and explain it, privately to me in email if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)