| Revision as of 19:05, 30 June 2004 editEl Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:05, 30 June 2004 edit undoMichael Snow (talk | contribs)Administrators19,335 edits →Your Request for ArbitrationNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| I'd quietly suggest that you would be wise to remove the request for arbitration and go through the earlier steps of RfC. I reviewed the edits in question, and you quickly got abusive and angry, which is probably why you quickly gained a negative reputation. I can tell you right off the bat that the AC is not going to accept the request. You'd be best served, I think, by stopping swearing at people, and by going back to ] and trying again, this time calmly and politely. Also, you really should go through the previous steps in dispute resoltuion - particularly mediation, which is a really good step for when there are a lot of personal conflicts muddying up actual work on the articles. ] 19:05, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC) | I'd quietly suggest that you would be wise to remove the request for arbitration and go through the earlier steps of RfC. I reviewed the edits in question, and you quickly got abusive and angry, which is probably why you quickly gained a negative reputation. I can tell you right off the bat that the AC is not going to accept the request. You'd be best served, I think, by stopping swearing at people, and by going back to ] and trying again, this time calmly and politely. Also, you really should go through the previous steps in dispute resoltuion - particularly mediation, which is a really good step for when there are a lot of personal conflicts muddying up actual work on the articles. ] 19:05, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree with Snowspinner's comments. Several of the editors involved are very reasonable people, in my experience, and will listen carefully to your point of view if you present it calmly and clearly. When there are points of controversy, I encourage you to make good use of ], that's what they're for. --] 20:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:05, 30 June 2004
"my talk" page to keep track of changes I have made to the Misplaced Pages, with my reasons.
WikiUser 20:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Removed paragraph below from entry for England:
"England" is often used to refer to the United Kingdom, Great Britain, the island of Britain or indeed the British Isles. This is a misuse of the term and is not only incorrect but can cause offence to people from other parts of the UK. For example, someone from Scotland is also British but not English."
WikiUser 20:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Removed paragraph below from entry for England:
"Generally, an English person is someone who lives in England regardless of their racial origin. However, some people (including many south Asians and whites) use the label as only referring to the Britons of England: those people of indigenous, or "Anglo-Saxon" origin – preferring to instead use "British" as a racially neutral label. This is only possible due to the somewhat hazy distinction that many people make between "England" and "Britain"."
BECAUSE the first sentence is untrue and the rest is virtually meaningless, the last sentence is also untrue.
Your Request for Arbitration
I'd quietly suggest that you would be wise to remove the request for arbitration and go through the earlier steps of RfC. I reviewed the edits in question, and you quickly got abusive and angry, which is probably why you quickly gained a negative reputation. I can tell you right off the bat that the AC is not going to accept the request. You'd be best served, I think, by stopping swearing at people, and by going back to Talk:England and trying again, this time calmly and politely. Also, you really should go through the previous steps in dispute resoltuion - particularly mediation, which is a really good step for when there are a lot of personal conflicts muddying up actual work on the articles. Snowspinner 19:05, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Snowspinner's comments. Several of the editors involved are very reasonable people, in my experience, and will listen carefully to your point of view if you present it calmly and clearly. When there are points of controversy, I encourage you to make good use of talk pages, that's what they're for. --Michael Snow 20:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)