Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC: Revision history

1 June 2007

• curprev 20:0720:07, 1 June 2007 RockMFR talk contribs m 4,486 bytes 0 correct archive link undo

16 May 2007

• curprev 20:5220:52, 16 May 2007 RockMFR talk contribs 4,486 bytes −429 un-subst historical template undo

2 September 2006

• curprev 23:0323:03, 2 September 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 4,915 bytes −2 No edit summary undo
• curprev 23:0223:02, 2 September 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 4,917 bytes +447 closing undo

14 August 2006

• curprev 00:4500:45, 14 August 2006 82.36.120.13 talk 4,470 bytes −1 Typo it's --> its undo

7 August 2006

• curprev 16:3816:38, 7 August 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 4,471 bytes −8 →Examples of current usage: deception point wasn't a game at all :- undo

31 July 2006

• curprev 04:2404:24, 31 July 2006 Tobyk777 talk contribs 4,479 bytes −73 No edit summary undo
• curprev 04:2304:23, 31 July 2006 Tobyk777 talk contribs 4,552 bytes +115 No edit summary undo

29 July 2006

• curprev 12:5812:58, 29 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 4,437 bytes +253 rv, these are the arguments, not the conclusions undo
• curprev 11:4611:46, 29 July 2006 Matthew talk contribs 4,184 bytes −155 →Arguments for and against: remove npov statement, this is definitley not npov (see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC#User:MatthewFenton) undo
• curprev 11:3311:33, 29 July 2006 Matthew talk contribs 4,339 bytes −98 →Arguments for and against: in no way does the tag censor, it would be censored if text was blanked/removed etc, the tag meerly warns. undo

21 July 2006

• curprev 03:0203:02, 21 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 4,437 bytes −52 →Arguments for and against: redundant with the organization point. remember, these are brief arguments. undo
• curprev 00:5400:54, 21 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs m 4,489 bytes 0 →Arguments for and against: for equal space +1 anti-point. opposing side verify unstrawman postfiling. undo
• curprev 00:5200:52, 21 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 4,489 bytes −94 →Arguments for and against: for equal space +1 anti. opposing side verify unstrawman postfiling. undo

20 July 2006

• curprev 23:5923:59, 20 July 2006 Plange talk contribs m 4,583 bytes +185 →Arguments for and against: clarification undo
• curprev 23:2023:20, 20 July 2006 Johntex talk contribs 4,398 bytes +205 Attempting to address Randall's concerns - thank you for the explanation. undo
• curprev 23:1823:18, 20 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs 4,193 bytes −230 I think what I'm saying is the "arguments" were provided in defense of the subject, not a argument for them. Such would be non-relevant if the rfc weren't initiated. undo
• curprev 23:1423:14, 20 July 2006 Johntex talk contribs 4,423 bytes +230 I don't understand your objection. Perhaps you can try to edit them rather than removing them? undo
• curprev 23:0923:09, 20 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs 4,193 bytes −230 both arguments translate to the other side has no reasoning. nice try. Please rewrite those in a less conclusive manner. undo
• curprev 00:3000:30, 20 July 2006 Johntex talk contribs 4,423 bytes +230 →Arguments for and against: Added two arguments "For" undo

19 July 2006

• curprev 23:5923:59, 19 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs 4,193 bytes −100 →Arguments for and against: - this is discussing the nature of spoiler tags and the effect on the encyclopedia. Editors were aware of this solution previously, that's not the point of the rfc. undo

18 July 2006

• curprev 19:4919:49, 18 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 4,293 bytes +55 →RfC discussion undo
• curprev 19:0019:00, 18 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 4,238 bytes +100 See strawman. The editor in question believes in this argument. undo
• curprev 17:0517:05, 18 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs 4,138 bytes −100 →Arguments for and against: - rm straw man argument. undo
• curprev 15:4515:45, 18 July 2006 Daniel 123 talk contribs 4,238 bytes +100 No edit summary undo
• curprev 05:2005:20, 18 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 4,138 bytes +27 →Older discussions undo
• curprev 01:2801:28, 18 July 2006 Kunzite talk contribs 4,111 bytes +51 →Examples of current usage: updated some of the descriptors.. The HP film is in the planning stages, undo
• curprev 00:5800:58, 18 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs m 4,060 bytes 0 No edit summary undo
• curprev 00:5800:58, 18 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs m 4,060 bytes +22 adding another template to intro text undo
• curprev 00:1700:17, 18 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs m 4,038 bytes +46 slight formatting undo

17 July 2006

• curprev 23:5923:59, 17 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 3,992 bytes +504 →Examples of current usage: games and magic. Annotations. undo
• curprev 23:3923:39, 17 July 2006 GunnarRene talk contribs 3,488 bytes 0 →Examples of current usage undo
• curprev 21:5021:50, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 3,488 bytes +1 →Arguments for and against: better word for that example undo
• curprev 10:5010:50, 17 July 2006 Hiding talk contribs 3,487 bytes +65 nutural - is that natural or neutral? undo
• curprev 03:3003:30, 17 July 2006 Ryu Kaze talk contribs 3,422 bytes −60 →Arguments for and against: I already hade the "usenet" part in the main summary, but I've now added part about Jimbo; reverting "believe" qualifiers undo
• curprev 03:2703:27, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 3,482 bytes −146 →Arguments for and against: don't bullshit with me, this is the professional/encyclopedic issue undo
• curprev 03:2603:26, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 3,628 bytes +59 →Arguments for and against: you're suposed to disagree with the arguments, that's the point. These are the "pro" view. undo
• curprev 03:2503:25, 17 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs 3,569 bytes +146 This summary was not outlined in the extended talkpage overview. Replacing. undo
• curprev 03:2303:23, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 3,423 bytes −376 →Arguments for and against: come on guys, "this is only intended to be an extremely brief summary" undo
• curprev 03:2003:20, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 3,799 bytes −296 →Arguments for and against: One can say that about any concept of wikipedia, as articles are all works in progress. A good argument for the discsusion page, not for the overview undo
• curprev 03:1903:19, 17 July 2006 Ned Scott talk contribs 4,095 bytes −239 →Arguments for and against: these are covered under "professional", this is just an over-view of basic arguments undo
• curprev 01:3301:33, 17 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs m 4,334 bytes +155 →Arguments for and against: - diff links undo
• curprev 00:0900:09, 17 July 2006 Ryu Kaze talk contribs m 4,179 bytes +220 →Arguments for and against: expanding on Steve's comment undo
• curprev 00:0100:01, 17 July 2006 Ryu Kaze talk contribs m 3,959 bytes +95 →Arguments for and against: removing one part due to inaccurate info; condensing some similar ones; adding some new ones undo

16 July 2006

• curprev 23:5823:58, 16 July 2006 Ryu Kaze talk contribs 3,864 bytes +146 →Arguments for and against: for the sake of fairness, most of these need a "believed"-type qualifier if even one has one, so I'm going to apply it to them undo
• curprev 23:2223:22, 16 July 2006 Lee Bailey talk contribs m 3,718 bytes −2 →Arguments for and against: typo fix undo
• curprev 23:1823:18, 16 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs m 3,720 bytes +12 →Arguments for and against: - another perception undo
• curprev 23:1223:12, 16 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs m 3,708 bytes +14 →Arguments for and against: - perception. No basis of fact this. undo
• curprev 23:1023:10, 16 July 2006 Ryu Kaze talk contribs m 3,694 bytes −2 →Arguments for and against: punctuation undo
• curprev 23:0523:05, 16 July 2006 Randall Brackett talk contribs m 3,696 bytes +144 →Arguments for and against: - added another undo