| Revision as of 16:07, 27 August 2013 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,658 edits →The Signpost: 21 August 2013: fix The Ban on Love← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 27 August 2013 edit undoRexxS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,075 edits →Infobox wars: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Serius, you made a great comment in the arb case. Mine is in the Signpost, did you come from there? (Just curious.) Did you know that one discussion is open for practising, ]? You are welcome to participate. I consider it open, even though a protector of the status quo changed the wording of the project's MoS (you may have read that also.). I certainly didn't feel bold when I inserted the infobox instead of something duplicate in a strange position, but stand corrected (little edit war). I am open and without passion in that case, it's a rather obscure opera, but I like the title ;) (so much that I placed it on top of my user). One of the merry band, --] (]) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | Serius, you made a great comment in the arb case. Mine is in the Signpost, did you come from there? (Just curious.) Did you know that one discussion is open for practising, ]? You are welcome to participate. I consider it open, even though a protector of the status quo changed the wording of the project's MoS (you may have read that also.). I certainly didn't feel bold when I inserted the infobox instead of something duplicate in a strange position, but stand corrected (little edit war). I am open and without passion in that case, it's a rather obscure opera, but I like the title ;) (so much that I placed it on top of my user). One of the merry band, --] (]) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Infobox wars == | |||
| Hi Harry, | |||
| Thanks for your thoughts on the PD. But.. | |||
| {{tq|What needs to end and what is totally unacceptable and unconducive to productive discussion is: | |||
| * Adding infoboxes to articles where previous contributors have opted to omit one (or removing long-standing infoboxes) without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.}} | |||
| You might as well write "Ban all addition of infoboxes to composer articles" because that is exactly what it is equivalent to. | |||
| {{diff2|547806753|Info box reverted. Edit summary: ''cleanup''}} - how helpful is that? Nevertheless, I go to {{oldid2|561755412|Infobox|the talk page}} where I summarise three reasons for adding an infobox and invite a case to be made against having an infobox, or for having an infobox with fewer parameters. Just read the attempts to "establish a consensus on the article's talk page". Who was trying and who was stonewalling? | |||
| Here's a teaser: how many examples of "establishing a consensus on the article's talk page" can you find? You're more likely to find pieces of rocking-horse shit. You'll find plenty of examples of 6 people being canvassed to chorus "adds nothing; redundant" and that being called a "consensus". | |||
| Now tell me how your remedy does anything other than tear up ]. --] (]) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 27 August 2013
|
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
User edit warring and making false claims ect...
User:Winkelvi decided to revert me here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Design_the_Skyline&diff=568373829&oldid=568301090 with some false claim that I changed the band member's name to zeroes (even though this is exact opposite which is clearly obvious when you click that link showing the diff) and then aftward he reverted me again when I changed it back.
Then when I went to his talk page, being as pissed off as I was, he decided to say I was making "personal attacks" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=568690152&oldid=568682941
what is this guy even thinking? So in a nutshell he convicts me of doing the exact opposite of something, then when I tell him what he did was wrong he removes his own messages, calls it personal attacks and edit wars with me again? What the...
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nev1 (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
C/E help :(
Hello there, I looked you up on the peer review volunteer page; I dunno if you can help cos I'm in a bit of a pickle. I started this article from scratch and got too excited when it got GA status that i nominated it for FA without forgoing a peer review :s I'm a bit disadvantaged cos English is not my native language and god knows how hard I've tried to get better at writing here but apparently I'm always messing up as you can see here and as one reluctant reviewer said: "there are still areas that could be improved ... prose could be improved..." and I have no clue where to start because getting the article to where it is now was enough of a headache. If you can be kind enough to scan the article for obvious and deadly prose mistakes i'd be very greatful. I already asked for peer review but got no answer as you can see on the article's talk page. thanks -Eli+ 13:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Misplaced Pages
Serius, you made a great comment in the arb case. Mine is in the Signpost, did you come from there? (Just curious.) Did you know that one discussion is open for practising, The Ban on Love? You are welcome to participate. I consider it open, even though a protector of the status quo changed the wording of the project's MoS (you may have read that also.). I certainly didn't feel bold when I inserted the infobox instead of something duplicate in a strange position, but stand corrected (little edit war). I am open and without passion in that case, it's a rather obscure opera, but I like the title ;) (so much that I placed it on top of my user). One of the merry band, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Infobox wars
Hi Harry,
Thanks for your thoughts on the PD. But..
What needs to end and what is totally unacceptable and unconducive to productive discussion is:
- Adding infoboxes to articles where previous contributors have opted to omit one (or removing long-standing infoboxes) without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.
You might as well write "Ban all addition of infoboxes to composer articles" because that is exactly what it is equivalent to.
Info box reverted. Edit summary: cleanup - how helpful is that? Nevertheless, I go to the talk page where I summarise three reasons for adding an infobox and invite a case to be made against having an infobox, or for having an infobox with fewer parameters. Just read the attempts to "establish a consensus on the article's talk page". Who was trying and who was stonewalling?
Here's a teaser: how many examples of "establishing a consensus on the article's talk page" can you find? You're more likely to find pieces of rocking-horse shit. You'll find plenty of examples of 6 people being canvassed to chorus "adds nothing; redundant" and that being called a "consensus".
Now tell me how your remedy does anything other than tear up WP:OWN. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)