| Revision as of 12:44, 13 March 2018 editCodename Lisa (talk | contribs)55,077 edits →Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1: addd← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:59, 13 March 2018 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors371,819 edits →Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1: tpsNext edit → | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| Best regards,<br/>] (]) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | Best regards,<br/>] (]) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :Wow. That was disappointing. So far, he has even refused to correctly identify the subject of discussion. ]. I'll wait 24 hours though. After that, I'll assess my options. ANI might be the correct venue. —] (]) 12:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | :Wow. That was disappointing. So far, he has even refused to correctly identify the subject of discussion. ]. I'll wait 24 hours though. After that, I'll assess my options. ANI might be the correct venue. —] (]) 12:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{U|Codename Lisa}}, the two edits you put on the page while a heated discussion was in progress did not have anything close to consensus. A neutral observer could easily view them as stoking a fire, or deliberately trying to antagonize editors. I would recommend that you either drop this particular stick or start a new discussion thread about each of these proposed changes (and then gracefully bow to consensus if it does not go your way). Respectfully, – ] (]) 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:59, 13 March 2018
| Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| ||
|
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.
 | To stop Monkbot, add a message to its talk page. Comments and questions about Monkbot are welcome here. |
Citation style for the Clitoris article
Please weigh in on this section. I'm not sure whether we should go with a more conventional style or stick with the current style. If we stick with the current style, there are currently some inconsistent aspects in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Translation template
I noticed that you are removing the translation template in an attempt to fix the broken use of italics in the template. Just to let you know adding |italic=yes will fix it instead of removing the template. This diff illustrates. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- You mistake the purpose of the edit that I made. This is the English wikipedia.
{{lang-en}}has little to no value here, and as an aside, is not atranslation template
. The primary purpose of the{{lang-??}}templates is to provide proper html markup for browsers and screen readers so that they know how to correctly render or speak the words in the template. But, since the html of GT-Gyroplanes Kruza has this:<html class="client-nojs" lang="en" dir="ltr">
- there is no reason at all to mark the word 'Cruiser' as English language text with redundant html:
<span title="English-language text"><span lang="en">Cruiser</span></span>
- with or without
|italic=. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well thanks for your response. I originally used that to explain the aircraft's name, because it sure ain't in English! - Ahunt (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1
Hello.
I've seen that you've lifted the protection. Thanks. That's a step in the right direction. Therefore, I do not want to respond to your act of cooperation with a rash action.
But I would like you to understand the full ramification of what you did earlier. I want you to know it, because if I ever go to ANI, or God forbid, ArbCom, that's what I will bring up.
Illegitimately deleting content is vandalism. That means content deletion without explanation, with false explanation and with ex post facto explanation. It is customary not to call a registered editor a vandal immediately. Instead, one must give that person a chance to explain himself and come clean. I agree that revision 830074230 arises from dispute. But revisions 830075636 and 830075967 are illegitimate deletions of content contributed in good faith. Headbomb had a lot of chances to come clean. He hasn't. I am going to give him one more; this time more politely.
The problem even goes far deeper. I was one of the participants of the 4th RFA of Headbomb. While in an RFA, nominees are on their best behavior, Headbomb behaved so alarmingly poor that I thought Misplaced Pages definitely dodged a bullet. I now think I have enough material for ANI. The problem is: I have a principle of not initiating any action that serves exclusively to the detriment of an editor. I need to know first that he was in one of his moods, which I used to see in User:FleetCommand (may the God have mercy on his soul) or not. (Then again, FleetCommand never once disrespected me. It is a mystery to me.)
But as for you: In revision 830078379, you sided with illegitimate removal of content. I think you must do something about it. A justification of your own, a self-review or reverting would be fine. My preference is self-review.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. That was disappointing. So far, he has even refused to correctly identify the subject of discussion. WP:IDHT. I'll wait 24 hours though. After that, I'll assess my options. ANI might be the correct venue. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Codename Lisa, the two edits you put on the page while a heated discussion was in progress did not have anything close to consensus. A neutral observer could easily view them as stoking a fire, or deliberately trying to antagonize editors. I would recommend that you either drop this particular stick or start a new discussion thread about each of these proposed changes (and then gracefully bow to consensus if it does not go your way). Respectfully, – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)