View source for User talk:IanBourn

== It's a wiki article, not your user page! ==

"''He really has no idea how though. It was really lucky.''" This not wiki article language. I have nothing against you breaking the UWR or writing your article, if you put it into better format. You haven't bolded the title, added any links, put any sections in, added any categories, or even added the time of your UWR. It might as well have been a forum post put in the third person. [[User:Randomno|Randomno]] ([[User talk:Randomno|talk]]) 07:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

== Play nice ==

Guys, if there are any more derogatory edits, either in the page or in the Comment from editing the page, I will lock this down and ban both of you for a week. This is not constructive to the wiki environment. If you have an issue about the legitimacy of the solve or some other conflict sort it out either in your own talk pages, or NOT on the wiki at all. I don't want to see this turn into a perpetual flamewar, there's enough of that kind of drama on bigger wiki's already. [[User:MaeLSTRoM|MaeLSTRoM]] ([[User talk:MaeLSTRoM|talk]]) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Since he seems to extremely overreact with a misunderstanding, I wouldn't be surprised if he starts vandalising my userpage etc. if there are more. As I said, I have no issue with his solve. I don't doubt he got 3.63, but the solution on the article was not working. Considering what's already happened, me removing his solution could lead to misunderstandings similar to before. I haven't made any derogatory edits IIRC. [[User:Randomno|Randomno]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Randomno|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 11:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Actually the solution did work in the article you originally deleted, and when it was reposted there was a single prime missing. The article has now been restored, you can edit it to make it more proper, but more abuse related to the solution will have consequences. [[User:MaeLSTRoM|MaeLSTRoM]] ([[User talk:MaeLSTRoM|talk]]) 12:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::How did I abuse the solution? When I read it, the solution did not work, even if that was a mistake when the article was recreated. I clearly stated in the edit comment that I was fine if he added the correct solution, and that I was only removing it because it did not seem correct, not because I disputed his UWR claim. [[User:Randomno|Randomno]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Randomno|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 12:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::The issue I have with all this is that the entire chain of events was set off because you deleted the original page, instead of tidying like you have done this time around. If you thought it was a bad article you should have either fixed it, or tagged it as a DNF page. I don't care about the reasons why you did it, but the arbitrary deletion of content is what I class as abuse, and is what I was referring to above. [[User:MaeLSTRoM|MaeLSTRoM]] ([[User talk:MaeLSTRoM|talk]]) 12:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Why do non-admins actually have deletion powers anyway? [[User:Randomno|Randomno]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Randomno|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 12:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Because admins have un-delete and the wiki is built on trust. There is no systematic abuse of it so it will remain that way for now at least. [[User:MaeLSTRoM|MaeLSTRoM]] ([[User talk:MaeLSTRoM|talk]]) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)