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. |
I wouldn't have minded you erasing my comments, because they were a little abrupt and didn't belong on article. However, I am disappointed in you reverting back to what is totally untrue. Wikipedia should contain truth.
St.Georges day is celebrated on the 23rd of April in England. It isn't 'moved' anywhere. Christian churches hold St.George services on the nearest Sunday to the 23rd of April.
92.239.90.145 ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess that Wikipedia is now censored, since DD did do some porno and sold a bunch of t-shirts when he was dirt poor. Congratulations. The Republican party can use someone like you to conceal the truth. Onwards with the bildeburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.49.231 ( talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The article featured a brief, one line accusation of racism made by one collegiate reviewer, without substantiation, irrelevant to anything else and having nothing to do with the header under which it was written. I removed it because it was irrelevant and out of place.
I see now why people laugh when Wikipedia is cited as a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.71.35 ( talk) 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your copy edit. What do you mean with the clarification tag where you say, "Many mention that the manor became forfeit to the King?" Harrison49 ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If an article is written as an advertisement, and should include a telephone number. My experience has been that someone takes ownership of an article then any suggestions on the article's talk page are met with utter indifference.
Like I care about your warning
You should look at User:MrBunnyMan LOL because that is User:Kagome_85. A person who is permanently banned from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.144.125 ( talk) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Phil. Thanks for this clean-up. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Please don't think I am stalking you lol, Eastwood has been one of my role models since my early days of Spaghetti westerns, and as the invite was for several editors I am keen to read the article once you have finished. I was going to start this one a week or so ago when it first came in but my conjunctivitis got worse and I had to stop using the PC for a while.
I would like to just mention that looking at one paragraph in particular I wanted to change it from:
to
I just wondered if you could see my rationale? Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly stalking when I told you what I was doing :) The paragraph rewrite is much better and if you don't mind I'll use it when I get to that section. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What's with the spike at 623? Did I miss some news?
(Map-related replies forthcoming. Nice work, by the way.) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Embarrassed cough. Oh yes, I did know about that because of the BRICS meeting but I didn't connect the two. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism.
You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism. Twat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.219.194 ( talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By the same token, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that you should not remove referenced content or blank sections without a comment or after gaining concensus on the pertinent article's talk page. You should also sign posts on user pages with four tildes (~~~~). Calling me a twat is like water off a ducks back. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really clear why my edit was marked as "vandalism," considering I was making legitimate changes to a very poorly-written page. I understand and whole-heatedly support Wikipedia's mission, and as such was trying to clean up an incredibly sloppy article into something that would hold some validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.109.99 ( talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see my edit note and the history of this article. I was reverting to existing consensus, and would be obliged if you remove your erroneous vandalism warning. Thanks. Hengist Pod ( talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me about the edit filter. My reversion has nothing to do with it. As for good faith edits, ask yourself, why is the article called "Prince Harry of Wales" not "Prince Henry of Wales"? Going against nomenclature which is accepted by the Wiki community is clearly not good faith. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, my revert would have happened regardless of the edit filter. With the Royal Wedding imminent I am watching all pages that are likely to be changed. This has nothing to do with good faith I can assure you and if you check my warning on your user page (which you've deleted), you will not find the word "vandalism". ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the contact, I added a request on the page and also attempted to correct the list by going back to the furthest non vandalized edit, which was in early April. Apparently due to previous vandalism by IPs and such, some legit editors did not use the revert function and instead removed edits or replaced missing information manually, basically leaving a lot of hidden vandal edits. Unicogirl ( talk) 00:41, 26 April 2011 (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. |
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. |
I wouldn't have minded you erasing my comments, because they were a little abrupt and didn't belong on article. However, I am disappointed in you reverting back to what is totally untrue. Wikipedia should contain truth.
St.Georges day is celebrated on the 23rd of April in England. It isn't 'moved' anywhere. Christian churches hold St.George services on the nearest Sunday to the 23rd of April.
92.239.90.145 ( talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess that Wikipedia is now censored, since DD did do some porno and sold a bunch of t-shirts when he was dirt poor. Congratulations. The Republican party can use someone like you to conceal the truth. Onwards with the bildeburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.49.231 ( talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The article featured a brief, one line accusation of racism made by one collegiate reviewer, without substantiation, irrelevant to anything else and having nothing to do with the header under which it was written. I removed it because it was irrelevant and out of place.
I see now why people laugh when Wikipedia is cited as a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.71.35 ( talk) 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your copy edit. What do you mean with the clarification tag where you say, "Many mention that the manor became forfeit to the King?" Harrison49 ( talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If an article is written as an advertisement, and should include a telephone number. My experience has been that someone takes ownership of an article then any suggestions on the article's talk page are met with utter indifference.
Like I care about your warning
You should look at User:MrBunnyMan LOL because that is User:Kagome_85. A person who is permanently banned from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.144.125 ( talk) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Phil. Thanks for this clean-up. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Please don't think I am stalking you lol, Eastwood has been one of my role models since my early days of Spaghetti westerns, and as the invite was for several editors I am keen to read the article once you have finished. I was going to start this one a week or so ago when it first came in but my conjunctivitis got worse and I had to stop using the PC for a while.
I would like to just mention that looking at one paragraph in particular I wanted to change it from:
to
I just wondered if you could see my rationale? Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly stalking when I told you what I was doing :) The paragraph rewrite is much better and if you don't mind I'll use it when I get to that section. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What's with the spike at 623? Did I miss some news?
(Map-related replies forthcoming. Nice work, by the way.) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Embarrassed cough. Oh yes, I did know about that because of the BRICS meeting but I didn't connect the two. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism.
You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism. Twat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.219.194 ( talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By the same token, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that you should not remove referenced content or blank sections without a comment or after gaining concensus on the pertinent article's talk page. You should also sign posts on user pages with four tildes (~~~~). Calling me a twat is like water off a ducks back. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really clear why my edit was marked as "vandalism," considering I was making legitimate changes to a very poorly-written page. I understand and whole-heatedly support Wikipedia's mission, and as such was trying to clean up an incredibly sloppy article into something that would hold some validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.109.99 ( talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see my edit note and the history of this article. I was reverting to existing consensus, and would be obliged if you remove your erroneous vandalism warning. Thanks. Hengist Pod ( talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me about the edit filter. My reversion has nothing to do with it. As for good faith edits, ask yourself, why is the article called "Prince Harry of Wales" not "Prince Henry of Wales"? Going against nomenclature which is accepted by the Wiki community is clearly not good faith. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, my revert would have happened regardless of the edit filter. With the Royal Wedding imminent I am watching all pages that are likely to be changed. This has nothing to do with good faith I can assure you and if you check my warning on your user page (which you've deleted), you will not find the word "vandalism". ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the contact, I added a request on the page and also attempted to correct the list by going back to the furthest non vandalized edit, which was in early April. Apparently due to previous vandalism by IPs and such, some legit editors did not use the revert function and instead removed edits or replaced missing information manually, basically leaving a lot of hidden vandal edits. Unicogirl ( talk) 00:41, 26 April 2011 (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. |