| Revision as of 16:44, 21 May 2013 editParrot of Doom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits →Beds on a beach: nonsense← Previous edit |
Revision as of 17:00, 21 May 2013 edit undoPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,076 edits →Beds on a beach: rNext edit → |
| Line 40: |
Line 40: |
|
::{{anchor|Recent edits}} Get off your high horse. You've been here long enough to know how Misplaced Pages works; and that's not how you describe it above. You don't get to remove cited content because you don't agree with how it's formatted, FAC or not. You're not ''protecting'' this article, as your edit summary arrogantly proclaimed; you're preventing it from being improved. And that's ''disruptive''. In blindly reverting, you've restored a challenged, uncited statement. That should be removed; and the material you removed should be restored. You also reverted the addition of a note on the band photos in DSotM. The article is now again misleading, giving the false impression that the AMLoR packaging was the first to feature them since Meddle in 1971, not DSotM in 1973. Mention of the pictures in DSotM should be restored. You also removed the fact that the picture shows Gilmour and Mason; we cannot assume that readers will know them from their faces; nor indeed that they can see the photograph at all. This too should be restored. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Gilmour;s recent views on the album. And you're in breach of ] - I'm giving you the opportunity to revert yourself, rather than me reporting you. Your call. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
::{{anchor|Recent edits}} Get off your high horse. You've been here long enough to know how Misplaced Pages works; and that's not how you describe it above. You don't get to remove cited content because you don't agree with how it's formatted, FAC or not. You're not ''protecting'' this article, as your edit summary arrogantly proclaimed; you're preventing it from being improved. And that's ''disruptive''. In blindly reverting, you've restored a challenged, uncited statement. That should be removed; and the material you removed should be restored. You also reverted the addition of a note on the band photos in DSotM. The article is now again misleading, giving the false impression that the AMLoR packaging was the first to feature them since Meddle in 1971, not DSotM in 1973. Mention of the pictures in DSotM should be restored. You also removed the fact that the picture shows Gilmour and Mason; we cannot assume that readers will know them from their faces; nor indeed that they can see the photograph at all. This too should be restored. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Gilmour;s recent views on the album. And you're in breach of ] - I'm giving you the opportunity to revert yourself, rather than me reporting you. Your call. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
:::Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
:::Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You have again reverted a set of unrelated changes, wholescale., You should know by now that this is unacceptable; as are the instructinos you seem to think you may issue. Please address each of the issues I raised above. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
I was reading through the Floyd chronology tonight, and got to Final Cut, and the "next album" was Momentary Lapse. I edited this to reflect Works. The reason I did this was that previous complations were in the sequence too (A Nice Pair & Relics). Given those were in the sequence, then Works should be as well, so I altered the previous next sequences on Final Cut, Works, & Momentary Lapse to reflect this.
It's very disappointing to see another, experience, editor repeatedly removing cited material (and thereby restoring an uncited fact contradicted by that cited material), apparently because he merely disagrees with the formatting of that cited material. Such behaviour is unacceptable. If the formatting is not to his taste, he is of course welcome to change it, without removing useful content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
