Misplaced Pages

User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:08, 21 February 2009 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,260 edits →Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war: Reply to Wikiuser100 about his/her order, mandate, decree, command, precept, direction.← Previous edit Revision as of 14:20, 21 February 2009 edit undoScott MacDonald (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,363 edits →Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war: run away little wikiuserNext edit →
Line 33: Line 33:


:::e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an ''injunction''? () I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the ]. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=]), including (point 2a) . Compare . ] | ] 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC). :::e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an ''injunction''? () I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the ]. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=]), including (point 2a) . Compare . ] | ] 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

::::Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--] 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:20, 21 February 2009

This user writes Featured Articles.

File:Animalibrí.gif

Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Old messages are at:


Essays:

Please leave new messages below

Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war

Dear Giano II. Indeed, with your summary reversion of my edit after a clear injunction that whomever disagreed with it should improve it, not merely revert it, it is taking on the look of an edit war. I take it you like big content heavy Intros, then? Would you be one of the page custodians you referred to? Please advise. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people watch that page, because a lot of people have to watch it. An open review went on of the article not once, but twice, and then a third time. Consensus among voters at FAC, then at two FARC's, was that the article was best in its present form. Any change to the status quo needs to have an extraordinarily compelling need to overcome a wide consensus. Arguments over one person's preference for how a lede should look are beside the point. Yes, there are people out there who think that lead paragraphs should be one-liners. I have my view of the mentality that prefers staccato data over syntactic information, but the essential factor in this edit war is this: this is not a matter of one person vs. another or one person's preferences being superior to another. It is a person with an itch vs. a consensus. Misplaced Pages works best, when it works at all, when there is consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an injunction? (Wiktionary: "an order; a mandate; a decree; a command; a precept; a direction.") I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the Featured article criteria. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=WP:MOS), including (point 2a) the MOS guideline for the length of lead sections. Compare this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC).
Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)