07:1307:13, 23 May 2016diffhist+654
Talk:Larry King
It's better that readers know that this guy corrected himself and asked the question about why the note about the legal name change wasn't made earlier.
06:5706:57, 23 May 2016diffhist+11
Louis C.K.
Can't trust me, can you? So I have to force you to see this link, huh? /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names
06:4906:49, 23 May 2016diffhist0
Martin Sheen
Yeah, that's right, revert something to REINTRODUCE errors (a stray comma in this case). Really "smart"!
06:4406:44, 23 May 2016diffhist+11
Daryl Hall
Reverting editing done by a socker should only be that: edits since the socking; not ALL edits that person has ever done in that category that they started socking to continue.
06:4006:40, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Jackée Harry
Besides that, WITHOUT the word "professionally" is how this already was for years. Why not just leave it less redundant?
06:3706:37, 23 May 2016diffhist−5
Jackée Harry
NO need to keep breaking the MOS. Someone tried using "professionally" on another article and one of you fighters took it OFF because it was redundant. So why go back to that here?
06:3506:35, 23 May 2016diffhist−4
Gene Simmons
Why do we have a MOS about pseudonyms if you're just going to refuse to go by it? What makes YOU so "special"?
06:2906:29, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Dylan McDermott
...but because you guys are so stubborn and love ignoring MOSes, I still did discuss it there at the talk page.
06:2406:24, 23 May 2016diffhist+37
Dylan McDermott
He didn't change his name legally, or you should have written that as part of the article. No need to discuss the consensus that was ALREADY SET BY THE MOS. FOLLOW THE MOS.
06:1506:15, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Louis C.K.
It's unconstructive for YOU to render it back to the old way just because... OH, "changes that bring an article to MOS standards are.... BAD!"
06:0606:06, 23 May 2016diffhist+37
Dylan McDermott
Why does the wiki even have an MOS if stubborn editors are too self-serving to even abide by it? Why is it supposedly "better" to "un-MOS" it than to just leave it as MOS?
06:0006:00, 23 May 2016diffhist+5
Sinbad (comedian)
No point in reverting something just because you don't like someone. You don't render all that person's edits invalid just because they warred with you later and you falsely erased their report of you because you didn't want to be reported.
05:5705:57, 23 May 2016diffhist−5
Jackée Harry
LOL, silly, you're reverting just to revert because you don't like the guy, while what you're reverting to is something that he added anyway. Why do that when you can revert to something from BEFORE that, which was already closer to the MOS?
05:5205:52, 23 May 2016diffhist+10
Louis C.K.
Stupid reversion against something that was not a harm but actually IS an improvement because it follows the MOS. Why even HAVE an MOS if stubborn editors are too selfish to abide by it?
07:1307:13, 23 May 2016diffhist+654
Talk:Larry King
It's better that readers know that this guy corrected himself and asked the question about why the note about the legal name change wasn't made earlier.
06:5706:57, 23 May 2016diffhist+11
Louis C.K.
Can't trust me, can you? So I have to force you to see this link, huh? /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names
06:4906:49, 23 May 2016diffhist0
Martin Sheen
Yeah, that's right, revert something to REINTRODUCE errors (a stray comma in this case). Really "smart"!
06:4406:44, 23 May 2016diffhist+11
Daryl Hall
Reverting editing done by a socker should only be that: edits since the socking; not ALL edits that person has ever done in that category that they started socking to continue.
06:4006:40, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Jackée Harry
Besides that, WITHOUT the word "professionally" is how this already was for years. Why not just leave it less redundant?
06:3706:37, 23 May 2016diffhist−5
Jackée Harry
NO need to keep breaking the MOS. Someone tried using "professionally" on another article and one of you fighters took it OFF because it was redundant. So why go back to that here?
06:3506:35, 23 May 2016diffhist−4
Gene Simmons
Why do we have a MOS about pseudonyms if you're just going to refuse to go by it? What makes YOU so "special"?
06:2906:29, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Dylan McDermott
...but because you guys are so stubborn and love ignoring MOSes, I still did discuss it there at the talk page.
06:2406:24, 23 May 2016diffhist+37
Dylan McDermott
He didn't change his name legally, or you should have written that as part of the article. No need to discuss the consensus that was ALREADY SET BY THE MOS. FOLLOW THE MOS.
06:1506:15, 23 May 2016diffhist+1
Louis C.K.
It's unconstructive for YOU to render it back to the old way just because... OH, "changes that bring an article to MOS standards are.... BAD!"
06:0606:06, 23 May 2016diffhist+37
Dylan McDermott
Why does the wiki even have an MOS if stubborn editors are too self-serving to even abide by it? Why is it supposedly "better" to "un-MOS" it than to just leave it as MOS?
06:0006:00, 23 May 2016diffhist+5
Sinbad (comedian)
No point in reverting something just because you don't like someone. You don't render all that person's edits invalid just because they warred with you later and you falsely erased their report of you because you didn't want to be reported.
05:5705:57, 23 May 2016diffhist−5
Jackée Harry
LOL, silly, you're reverting just to revert because you don't like the guy, while what you're reverting to is something that he added anyway. Why do that when you can revert to something from BEFORE that, which was already closer to the MOS?
05:5205:52, 23 May 2016diffhist+10
Louis C.K.
Stupid reversion against something that was not a harm but actually IS an improvement because it follows the MOS. Why even HAVE an MOS if stubborn editors are too selfish to abide by it?