This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tasty monster (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 28 June 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:38, 28 June 2010 by Tasty monster (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please refer all comments to the talk page of my main account, User talk:Tony Sidaway
Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, conceivably. Perhaps a discrete message from me to the committee in email might have created less needless fuss. It isn't as if they didn't already know what the case is about. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)