![]() |
Hi CouncilConnect! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC) |
I noticed that you recently used IMDB as a source for information in a
biography article. Please note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the
reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. You can read more about the reasons for this
here,
here and
here. Thank you, --
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots
21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:ERA does not say we use the original style but that we shouldn't change the established style without discussion, and the era style was changed in 2009. Whether or not that was done by discussion or simply accepted by lack of anyone wishing to change it is irrelevant, it's clearly the established style. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"Established" is your opinion, Mr Weller, whereas I can say that that the style was changed without reasons and without discussion either. There is no set time limit for fixing the era style, nor is it irrelevant that the policy is ignored. That is your POV which you are attempting to force on me.-- CouncilConnect ( talk) 14:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I find your very dishonest characterization that "someone" moved the page to "make an era change in the title (without raising a discussion)" quite disingenuous and offensive. The discussion and consensus for the move to Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) is here at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1#Title of this article. I moved it on 6 February 2018, several months after the discussion petered out. Today, 118 days after the last comment in that discussion, you move it back? WTF? If that's your aproach to WP:CONSENSUS you're going to have a difficult time here. Mojoworker ( talk) 20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CouncilConnect! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC) |
I noticed that you recently used IMDB as a source for information in a
biography article. Please note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the
reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. You can read more about the reasons for this
here,
here and
here. Thank you, --
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots
21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:ERA does not say we use the original style but that we shouldn't change the established style without discussion, and the era style was changed in 2009. Whether or not that was done by discussion or simply accepted by lack of anyone wishing to change it is irrelevant, it's clearly the established style. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"Established" is your opinion, Mr Weller, whereas I can say that that the style was changed without reasons and without discussion either. There is no set time limit for fixing the era style, nor is it irrelevant that the policy is ignored. That is your POV which you are attempting to force on me.-- CouncilConnect ( talk) 14:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I find your very dishonest characterization that "someone" moved the page to "make an era change in the title (without raising a discussion)" quite disingenuous and offensive. The discussion and consensus for the move to Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) is here at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1#Title of this article. I moved it on 6 February 2018, several months after the discussion petered out. Today, 118 days after the last comment in that discussion, you move it back? WTF? If that's your aproach to WP:CONSENSUS you're going to have a difficult time here. Mojoworker ( talk) 20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)