| Revision as of 07:32, 16 November 2008 editClosedmouth (talk | contribs)148,166 edits →If not typo Wahington/Washigton: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:20, 21 November 2008 edit undoTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ] (]) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :No problem, just thought I'd point it out for future reference. --] (]) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | :No problem, just thought I'd point it out for future reference. --] (]) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Warning regarding unlinking of dates== | |||
| As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, ], which I quote: | |||
| {{"|Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.}} | |||
| Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at ] and elsewhere. ] (]) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:20, 21 November 2008
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Somewhere
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
| This is Closedmouth's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | Thanks in advance to anyone who reverts vandalism in my userspace, it'd get a little tedious if I thanked everyone on their talk page every time |
 Archives |
|
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 when more than 5 sections are present. |
From your user page
As a note: Please remove the deletion notice of my page Vortex (paranormal, as I have addressed the issues you have specified. It has no right to be there still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetmackeral (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 November 2008
Shepherd
It's not vandalism. They are a eco-terrorist group. It is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.129.94 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you can find a reliable source that supports that assertion, you will have better luck. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by 65.212.211.146
Resolved – IP blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
On 10 October 2008, you indicated on User talk:65.212.211.146 that if the vandalism continued from that IP, that it would be blocked. The vandalism has continued. In the past 24 hours I have twice removed, "joke" edits made by IP User:65.212.211.146 to the Plains of San Agustin article. I also note other petty vandalism this month (Nov.). Who Is says that this IP is issued to W.T. Service, Friona, TX 79035. --Bejnar (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Splay
Sorry, I did that accidentally while making the request. I'll make note of that for future reference. I see that it's been removed already. (I really don't check very often...) --Geopgeop (T) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Did I explain this well enough?
Hello, I saw that you reverted the jazz page once again. Did you read what I wrote on that user's page? I tried to explain things nicely but I don't know if I was clear enough. I am still learning things myself and I don't want to scare off a new contributor. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- That looks fine. I somebody does something multiple times after being told not to, it's disruptive. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Vandal
I can't block him.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
bitch
revert my changes again....
I'll shit on your balls ... bitch
- You'll do what??? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If not typo Wahington/Washigton
Happy to oblige.
If not typo suggest modify to something like Washinton .
Thus: {{sic|Washinton}}
Other 20-1 misspellings of Wahington/Washigton seemed to be genuine.
When correcting misspellings all care taken to avoid the following:
- misspellings part of names of Image:Wahinton.jpg files.
- misspellings in historical blockquotes.
- misspellings that are other words, or words in other languages.
- misspellings marked by sic or other comments.
- misspellings are sometimes very difficult to tell, as one cannot know everything.
- if you fail to correct a misspelling, you may never find it again, in which case change it and it will be logged in the edit summary.
- sometimes a word is so badly misspelled it is unclear which word it is supposed to be, in which case add a comment <!-- what word is this --> and a sic.
Tabletop (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, just thought I'd point it out for future reference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Warning regarding unlinking of dates
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)