| Revision as of 10:06, 18 February 2014 editN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Soviet Union← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:12, 18 February 2014 edit undoN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Soviet Union: Move 1st reply and reply #2Next edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| Nug and Vercrumba are renewing antics over the Baltics after I reformatted the infobox to use the existant parameters.—] (]) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | Nug and Vercrumba are renewing antics over the Baltics after I reformatted the infobox to use the existant parameters.—] (]) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :Weirdly, I was just writing something there when this arrived. I have added something, but it seems we are going round in circles. The two of them are editors with, shall we say, a specific focus on Baltic-Soviet issues with a clear agenda to promote as opposed to wanting to write a clear and generalist encyclopedia entry. Unfortunately, in this context, they can deploy the fallacy that arcane pettifoggery must be superior to generalist description and hence bog people down in argument that may strike some as somewhat plausible. The reality is that the solutions I've proposed, based on using broader terminology, meet their fundamental objections; but because they don't flag up the explicit political statement they want to blare out from the page under that legalistic veneer they won't countenance them. ] (]) 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| .—] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | .—] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, that's not wholly inaccurate and at least it acknowledges that they were Soviet republics. If another editor had made that change, I'd be less sceptical about it. The problem is, as noted above, is that Nug is virtually an SPA. It's this kind of single-focus mission-editing and the interminable petty debate such editors provoke about matters that should actually be quite simple for the genuinely disinterested that have really drained me of most of my enthusiasm for contributing here unfortunately and I'm not sure how much I want to get dragged into all this. ] (]) 10:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Weirdly, I was just writing something there when this arrived. I have added something, but it seems we are going round in circles. The two of them are editors with, shall we say, a specific focus on Baltic-Soviet issues with a clear agenda to promote as opposed to wanting to write a clear and generalist encyclopedia entry. Unfortunately, in this context, they can deploy the fallacy that arcane pettifoggery must be superior to generalist description and hence bog people down in argument that may strike some as somewhat plausible. The reality is that the solutions I've proposed, based on using broader terminology, meet their fundamental objections; but because they don't flag up the explicit political statement they want to blare out from the page under that legalistic veneer they won't countenance them. ] (]) 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 18 February 2014
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
109.150.23.189
Hi. I've become interested in a bunch of IPs, making many edits in similar styles on pages mostly related to independent TV in the UK, and also some on each other's talk pages. I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong, just that these edits have grabbed my attention and when I have more time I may take a closer look.
I noticed while clicking around a message you left on User Talk:109.150.23.189 in October, about an issue on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive. I can't locate that issue (unsure how to look for it).
Do you remember what this was about? Or can you point me to the issue?
Many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the archived discussion. The things I'd spotted were more about music pages, but it seems it may be all part of the same problem. N-HH talk/edits 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year N-HH!
.jpg)
|
|
| Hello N-HH: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze 20:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
France
That was my fault. I checked and reverted the last revision, from looking at the diff on my watchlist; and forgot to check for previous revisions by Sven.devarennes, so to other editors, it probably looked like I had checked them all. Apologies, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Soviet Union
Nug and Vercrumba are renewing antics over the Baltics after I reformatted the infobox to use the existant parameters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weirdly, I was just writing something there when this arrived. I have added something, but it seems we are going round in circles. The two of them are editors with, shall we say, a specific focus on Baltic-Soviet issues with a clear agenda to promote as opposed to wanting to write a clear and generalist encyclopedia entry. Unfortunately, in this context, they can deploy the fallacy that arcane pettifoggery must be superior to generalist description and hence bog people down in argument that may strike some as somewhat plausible. The reality is that the solutions I've proposed, based on using broader terminology, meet their fundamental objections; but because they don't flag up the explicit political statement they want to blare out from the page under that legalistic veneer they won't countenance them. N-HH (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that's not wholly inaccurate and at least it acknowledges that they were Soviet republics. If another editor had made that change, I'd be less sceptical about it. The problem is, as noted above, is that Nug is virtually an SPA. It's this kind of single-focus mission-editing and the interminable petty debate such editors provoke about matters that should actually be quite simple for the genuinely disinterested that have really drained me of most of my enthusiasm for contributing here unfortunately and I'm not sure how much I want to get dragged into all this. N-HH (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)