Difference between revisions of "CWCki talk:Banned Users"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*Agreed.--[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | *Agreed.--[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
*I'll do a bit of rewriting now then...Give me just a moment. --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | *I'll do a bit of rewriting now then...Give me just a moment. --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
*All cleaned up now. I've shortened most of the explainations to basic things like harassment and vandalism. I think it looks somewhat tidier now. --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:12, 16 July 2010
Page Created
So yeah, Champ asked and I made it. Additions/corrections/etc are more than welcome- I don't recognise many of the names on the list, so feel free to add in more details. I'd recommend we keep it slightly-brief in order to prevent glory seekers/namefags.
Um...
I don't know about this. Shouldn't we put down the reasons for banning specifically rather than their whole background? For example, 16BitAlex I don't think needs that much elaboration. I think "Banned at his own request" would be adequate. Also, having just looked over records, CrescentSkunk was actually banned for inserting false information into pages. --Edward 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Champthom 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll do a bit of rewriting now then...Give me just a moment. --Edward 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- All cleaned up now. I've shortened most of the explainations to basic things like harassment and vandalism. I think it looks somewhat tidier now. --Edward 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)