This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You are not going to win an argument by suggesting that edits are racist. In fact, you'll find that's viewed in a rather poor light around here. If you can give a solid, reasoned and convincing argument on the talk page, then you could gain consensus against the changes. Otherwise, not so much. D B D 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You've done a lot of these, and as far as I can see, many of them have not been discussed. Following objections from people on Talk:Mercia, I reverted that move, but I suggest that you revert all the other similar pages and discuss the matter first, instead of doing the move and then attempting to stipulate what the content of the article ought to be. For someone who claims to be semi-retired, what you have done here is quite an extensive set of undiscussed page moves. I do not recommend you to repeat any of them once they have been reverted unless you have got agreement to the moves on the appropriate talk pages. DDStretch (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
16:24, 3 December 2008 The Quill (Talk | contribs) (8,234 bytes) (Undid revision 255639732 by Rcawsey (talk))
Why the wholesale Undo ? - no vandalism was intended. . .
Rcawsey (
talk)
13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Quill. I'd say that these style boxes don't need the coat of arms in them because we have the shield & blazon box lower down (see Princess Beatrice). Instead, we could use their coronets, which don't appear elsewhere on the page, as previously was the case D B D 11:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So why do you now refuse to answer? The questions are in your archive. ðarkun coll 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't, that IP is blocked in relation to the whole UK censorship / proxy issue. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for more info.) It has nothing to do with you. You should still be able to edit logged in. Prodego talk 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have noticed that you are restoring non-free images to articles despite in-line edit warnings that those specific images lack an adequate fair use rationale. Is there some particular reason why you are doing this? Road Wizard ( talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. The British royalty infoboxes were created by Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The "Scope" section of that page says it is for rulers from George I of Great Britain onwards. There's no obvious reason to be tagging Anglo-Saxon kings as "British Royalty". Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So, I opened an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template and spammed it to a few project pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please discuss on the talk page instead of reverting? I have given a comment few days ago and nobody has responed, yet you started making controversial edits to the article. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you please not mark edits as "minor" which are not minor. See this recent edit of yours for example. Minor edits are ones where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." See Help:Minor edit. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask what this revert was in aid of? This was a purely technical change to fix the template's use of excessive whitespace on transcluded pages, remove unneeded code from a template page and update the out-of-date technical documentation. If the only reason for reverting was the "name", "image" comments then they are easy to put back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The documentation is wrong don't just edit look with your eyes! The Quill ( talk) 16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well done on the new WikiProject! Congrats! ;) Best, -- Cameron * 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As you were told by Chris Cunningham already, this is not the done thing. Use edit summaries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And this is not good either. If an administrator reviews the speedy deletion request and rejects it, please don't restore the tag. The next step is not to add the tag back, it's to take the template to WP:TFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have restored this article to its title prior to the highly controversial move you carried out on 30 November. I have protected it to allow for a debate to take place on the title. If you wish to rename it, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb ( talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss your change at Template talk:User Wikimedia Commons#Image_size before making it again. Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You are not going to win an argument by suggesting that edits are racist. In fact, you'll find that's viewed in a rather poor light around here. If you can give a solid, reasoned and convincing argument on the talk page, then you could gain consensus against the changes. Otherwise, not so much. D B D 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You've done a lot of these, and as far as I can see, many of them have not been discussed. Following objections from people on Talk:Mercia, I reverted that move, but I suggest that you revert all the other similar pages and discuss the matter first, instead of doing the move and then attempting to stipulate what the content of the article ought to be. For someone who claims to be semi-retired, what you have done here is quite an extensive set of undiscussed page moves. I do not recommend you to repeat any of them once they have been reverted unless you have got agreement to the moves on the appropriate talk pages. DDStretch (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
16:24, 3 December 2008 The Quill (Talk | contribs) (8,234 bytes) (Undid revision 255639732 by Rcawsey (talk))
Why the wholesale Undo ? - no vandalism was intended. . .
Rcawsey (
talk)
13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Quill. I'd say that these style boxes don't need the coat of arms in them because we have the shield & blazon box lower down (see Princess Beatrice). Instead, we could use their coronets, which don't appear elsewhere on the page, as previously was the case D B D 11:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So why do you now refuse to answer? The questions are in your archive. ðarkun coll 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't, that IP is blocked in relation to the whole UK censorship / proxy issue. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for more info.) It has nothing to do with you. You should still be able to edit logged in. Prodego talk 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have noticed that you are restoring non-free images to articles despite in-line edit warnings that those specific images lack an adequate fair use rationale. Is there some particular reason why you are doing this? Road Wizard ( talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. The British royalty infoboxes were created by Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The "Scope" section of that page says it is for rulers from George I of Great Britain onwards. There's no obvious reason to be tagging Anglo-Saxon kings as "British Royalty". Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So, I opened an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template and spammed it to a few project pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you please discuss on the talk page instead of reverting? I have given a comment few days ago and nobody has responed, yet you started making controversial edits to the article. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you please not mark edits as "minor" which are not minor. See this recent edit of yours for example. Minor edits are ones where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." See Help:Minor edit. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask what this revert was in aid of? This was a purely technical change to fix the template's use of excessive whitespace on transcluded pages, remove unneeded code from a template page and update the out-of-date technical documentation. If the only reason for reverting was the "name", "image" comments then they are easy to put back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The documentation is wrong don't just edit look with your eyes! The Quill ( talk) 16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well done on the new WikiProject! Congrats! ;) Best, -- Cameron * 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As you were told by Chris Cunningham already, this is not the done thing. Use edit summaries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And this is not good either. If an administrator reviews the speedy deletion request and rejects it, please don't restore the tag. The next step is not to add the tag back, it's to take the template to WP:TFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have restored this article to its title prior to the highly controversial move you carried out on 30 November. I have protected it to allow for a debate to take place on the title. If you wish to rename it, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb ( talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss your change at Template talk:User Wikimedia Commons#Image_size before making it again. Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)