Club Penguin Fanon Wiki talk:Policy/Rights and Inactivity

LOL: "Non-constructive edits (e.g: adding 'AD' or an extra period)"

Perapin

06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people do that. -Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 06:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This article has grammar issues. Please get it fixed because I can't edit it.

Perapin

06:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Correcting grammar, adding punctuation, affixing the proper era on years, and making cosmetic improvements ARE constructive edits. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) - You asked for a couple of ice cubes, BUT I ONLY GAVE YOU ONE!!† † Women to the left of me, women to the right! I've got no guns! I've got no knives! Don't you start a fight!^[1] __^[1]_[2] ―――――――</big>

18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is established that adding AD is not formal because it is common knowledge to know that the current year is in AD. Also, "extra periods" are meant by adding periods/full-stops to one word image captions for example. More stylistic than constructive.

Perapin

20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

^^ This, also, unless Bob existed in the distant past, like Egyptian times, it would be rational to say therefore AD and BC, etc etc. However, as Perapin said, it's only common knowledge it's AD... -Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SOON

This is the most corrupt, wicked, stupid, and dishonorable policy on the CPFW. It has no purpose for existing except to punish users for having lives outside the CPFW. Heck, it might even be a ploy to demote me again, given my "inactivity". Mark my words, thsi Policy won't last until 2016 AD. This will be the first policy to die, mark my words. MARK MY WORDS! --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) - You asked for a couple of ice cubes, BUT I ONLY GAVE YOU ONE!!† † Women to the left of me, women to the right! I've got no guns! I've got no knives! Don't you start a fight!^[2] __^[1]_[2] ―――――――</big>

18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, you still classify as active. -- Bro ^{Talk to me!} 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a policy meant to "scare" people with user rights to keep on editing. While implied as a consequential policy, the common sense rule applies so really it's useless unless it's used to defenestrate someone who is inactive according to the rules just because people don't like him/her. The only other way that this policy is used is to demote a clearly inactive user who seems to have quit, but that's obvious.

Perapin

20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-Wonderweez ^{(Talk · Contribs)} 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The policy was made because there are at least 3 admins who haven't even edited since a year/two years ago. It's a way so people with rights can be there to use their rights. Idk what makes you think this is a terrible idea, but it's a way to prevent inactivity unless you want to resign your rights. It IS your right whether to keep them or not. --not amigopen 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And this is why Fanon has such a bad reputation across the network. Anyways. Without an inactivity policy, there would be, well, inactive administrators. I'm not sure if there is a cap on the amount here, but that administrative position is valuable. An inactive user cannot simply hog up one position. I think that this revised policy allows slackers to keep on editing, and it will also give other users the opportunity to take over a slacker's position. Other wikis have it, so why not Fanon? This policy is going to stick, and that is certain. -- Yoshi11 | Anyone need a tour guide? 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)