→Nikolic: Agreed |
→Nikolic: Your recent edits |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:<grin>. True. (But that doesn't stop them from happening!) Regards, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC) |
:<grin>. True. (But that doesn't stop them from happening!) Regards, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
===Your recent edits at [[Andrew Nikolić]]=== |
|||
a) According to WP policies and guidelines, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Nikoli%C4%87&diff=563117415&oldid=563112250 these edits] <u>could</u> be classified as edit-warring. You are probably quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, but in case you are not, if your edit is reverted, the policy is to discuss the matter on the talk page - not to revert the reversion. |
|||
b) You and Autumnal Monk seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am trying to achieve a compromise. What was wrong with my compromise? |
|||
c) ''Reversion to previous content which was already within WP guidelines; edits should be according to guidelines and not based on personal value judgments'' - I find this slightly offensive. Please refamiliarise yourself with [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NPA]] |
|||
:c.1) I'm not convinced that your edit satisfies [[WP:UNDUE]]. |
|||
:c.2) Which edits are you asserting are based on "personal value judgments"? |
|||
d) You may wish to reconsider the abovementioned edits and revise them. Should you not do so, as specified in WP guidelines, I shall open a discussion on the [[Talk:Andrew Nikolić|article talk page]]. |
|||
Cheers, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 07:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:13, 7 July 2013
welcome [User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nikolic
The Liberal Party have => He has
Good! That completely removes the need for a debate on grammar over whether "The Liberal Party" is singular or plural ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the edit wars that go on in these pages, I think subject-verb agreement for collective nouns is the least of our worries !
- <grin>. True. (But that doesn't stop them from happening!) Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits at Andrew Nikolić
a) According to WP policies and guidelines, these edits could be classified as edit-warring. You are probably quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, but in case you are not, if your edit is reverted, the policy is to discuss the matter on the talk page - not to revert the reversion.
b) You and Autumnal Monk seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am trying to achieve a compromise. What was wrong with my compromise?
c) Reversion to previous content which was already within WP guidelines; edits should be according to guidelines and not based on personal value judgments - I find this slightly offensive. Please refamiliarise yourself with WP:AGF and WP:NPA
- c.1) I'm not convinced that your edit satisfies WP:UNDUE.
- c.2) Which edits are you asserting are based on "personal value judgments"?
d) You may wish to reconsider the abovementioned edits and revise them. Should you not do so, as specified in WP guidelines, I shall open a discussion on the article talk page.