Content deleted Content added
Libertarian12111971 (talk | contribs) |
Epeefleche (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Why not just guide your way through the article? That's just pure laziness. [[User:Libertarian12111971|Libertarian12111971]] ([[User talk:Libertarian12111971|talk]]) 07:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
:Why not just guide your way through the article? That's just pure laziness. [[User:Libertarian12111971|Libertarian12111971]] ([[User talk:Libertarian12111971|talk]]) 07:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I've already explained this to you, both in edit summaries, above, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Libertarian12111971#Inline_links here]. I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring. The inline of the person's name allows the reader to know that there is more to be read, if they wish to go there, about the person by clicking on their name and going to the article it leads to. --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 07:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:37, 30 May 2015
Islam Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Arizona Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Repeated deletions of inlines
An editor has now repeatedly ... in a slow-motion edit war ... deleted inlines to redirects. Asserting, without basis, that they are "useless". They are in fact useful. They alert readers here to the fact that there is discussion of the subjects at the page in question. Which, of course, is the entire purpose of redirects. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why not just guide your way through the article? That's just pure laziness. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've already explained this to you, both in edit summaries, above, and here. I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring. The inline of the person's name allows the reader to know that there is more to be read, if they wish to go there, about the person by clicking on their name and going to the article it leads to. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)