m a note |
|||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots&action=history This reversion] and corresponding edit summary shows a tremendous amount of bad faith. As was discussed on [[User talk:Daniel Case]], this discussion belongs on [[Talk:Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots]], not Daniel's page. Your bad-faith accusations against those you disagree with have gotten you blocked before and you will be blocked again if this continues. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots&action=history This reversion] and corresponding edit summary shows a tremendous amount of bad faith. As was discussed on [[User talk:Daniel Case]], this discussion belongs on [[Talk:Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots]], not Daniel's page. Your bad-faith accusations against those you disagree with have gotten you blocked before and you will be blocked again if this continues. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Wikipedia:Consensus== |
|||
About this earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots&diff=prev&oldid=369569517 page move] by you, please note that it is not appropriate to do so without first discussing it on the article's talk page to gain a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|CONSENSUS]] from the regular editors there. What Bill posted just now before you delete it was only cautioning you against such, it should not be viewed as a reprimand or as a way to chastise you. But by returning the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&diff=prev&oldid=369592259 same template to him] is considered to be a [[WP:POINT|pointy behaviour]]. I would encourage you to please act in good faith by not posting such messages again in future. If you really have to, talk to him like a man and discuss it to work things out, instead of conducting such silly edits. Read also [[Wikipedia:Conflict paradox]]. Best. --[[User:Dave1185|<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Dave</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">[[user_talk:Dave1185|♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™]]</span></sup> 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:01, 22 June 2010
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Lolcat2.jpg/300px-Lolcat2.jpg)
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 18:45, 14 June 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Vandals
what's good for the xx, not so for the xy
what would Sarah say?
[9].
templates tempest
Don't edit war over the colour of templates just because Sweden has a page and you don't.
More pearls of wisdom
A tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.
Turns out, it's really not that important afterall.
WASP
The usual way of dealing with this is to use the move tool to rename the article, as long as it's in compliance with the naming conventions otherwise. As appears to have been done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
DO
![]() ![]()
|
I see you have signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying
I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Removal of discussion / bad faith accusations
This reversion and corresponding edit summary shows a tremendous amount of bad faith. As was discussed on User talk:Daniel Case, this discussion belongs on Talk:Womens_Airforce_Service_Pilots, not Daniel's page. Your bad-faith accusations against those you disagree with have gotten you blocked before and you will be blocked again if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus
About this earlier page move by you, please note that it is not appropriate to do so without first discussing it on the article's talk page to gain a CONSENSUS from the regular editors there. What Bill posted just now before you delete it was only cautioning you against such, it should not be viewed as a reprimand or as a way to chastise you. But by returning the same template to him is considered to be a pointy behaviour. I would encourage you to please act in good faith by not posting such messages again in future. If you really have to, talk to him like a man and discuss it to work things out, instead of conducting such silly edits. Read also Wikipedia:Conflict paradox. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)