Darvit Chandhurai (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Unlike you, I have lived in Britain for her entire political career, as well as before and since. I am far more aware of her because unlike you, living in the U.S., I was seeing her on television and reading reports concerning her on a daily basis. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" is precisely true. It would be very obvious to you if you had lived in the same country as her for decades. The Maragaret Thatcher Foundation are extreme Thatacherites. It's like saying that the Nazi party have provided us with a really nice photo of Hitler. The priority is not nice looking photographs. It is accurate photographs. She has never looked like that apart from a visit long ago to the photographer's studio. It is obviously a staged photograph that was used for propaganda in order to try to give her a good image. That photographs is decades old. Have a look at photographs of how she looks now. You wouldn't recognise her if all you knew was the photograph you'd added. "And Please stop reverting me on the page." You don't have consensus on the page. I have shown how it is pertinent to change it. I don't have to agree with you or comply with what you want solely because you want me to. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you always want to get your way you'll have to set up your own web site. --[[User:Darvit Chandhurai|Darvit Chandhurai]] ([[User talk:Darvit Chandhurai#top|talk]]) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
Unlike you, I have lived in Britain for her entire political career, as well as before and since. I am far more aware of her because unlike you, living in the U.S., I was seeing her on television and reading reports concerning her on a daily basis. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" is precisely true. It would be very obvious to you if you had lived in the same country as her for decades. The Maragaret Thatcher Foundation are extreme Thatacherites. It's like saying that the Nazi party have provided us with a really nice photo of Hitler. The priority is not nice looking photographs. It is accurate photographs. She has never looked like that apart from a visit long ago to the photographer's studio. It is obviously a staged photograph that was used for propaganda in order to try to give her a good image. That photographs is decades old. Have a look at photographs of how she looks now. You wouldn't recognise her if all you knew was the photograph you'd added. "And Please stop reverting me on the page." You don't have consensus on the page. I have shown how it is pertinent to change it. I don't have to agree with you or comply with what you want solely because you want me to. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you always want to get your way you'll have to set up your own web site. --[[User:Darvit Chandhurai|Darvit Chandhurai]] ([[User talk:Darvit Chandhurai#top|talk]]) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Edit warring== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:59, 28 February 2009
--Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
FA Cup 2008–09
Since the participants in that FA Cup Sixth Round tie have not been decided yet, it is inappropriate to add the venue. Also, please do not remove the italics from the word "or". – PeeJay 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It is 100% correct that the venue will be at either the Emirates or Turf Moor. So it is "appropriate". --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to keep on making alterations you should first justify it on the discussion page rather than just keep on reverting. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- As should you. Nevertheless, you cannot be 100% certain that the match will be held at either of those two venues, as it may be switched to an alternate venue for some reason, as unlikely as that may be. Also, with regard to your edit to Ruud van Nistelrooy, Wikipedia cannot reference itself, and Van Nistelrooy's number cannot be verified by any reliable source as being #37. – PeeJay 13:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits do not have to be justified on the discussion page. They must be justified when they are contended. You are contending that the edit is incorrect by deleting it without justifying it on the discussion page. Claiming that the venue might be changed is as invalid as claiming that one of the teams might not compete. If you contend Nistelrooy's number, you should do it on both pages - not selectively on only one. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The final, which is much further away is, according to Wikipedia, arranged for Wembley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_FA_Cup_Final Why haven't you deleted that, because according to what you have written "you cannot be 100% certain that the match will be held at" Wembley, "as it may be switched to an alternate venue" !!! --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. Your edits are becoming increasingly vexing, as it seems that you are blindly reverting my edits for no reason. – PeeJay 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher photo
Hi there, regarding a few recent edits you made to the Margaret Thatcher article over the main photo: You say that articles should show a recent photo of the subject as the main photo; may I ask you, then, why Nancy Reagan's photo is from 1981, Betty Ford's photo is from 1976, and Bill Clinton's photo is from 1993? They are all still living and more recent photos are available, but those are the official portraits of the subjects and therefore the best looking and most presentable. It does not necessarily matter about the age of the photograph (another example: Billy Graham).
The goal of main images is to introduce the subject of the article in a neat, professional way. The photo of Thatcher at Reagan's funeral in 2004 is an extremely cropped version of a high res pic; it shows her scowling and is not very professional. That said, it is not a bad photo and definitely belongs in the later life section, but it does not belong as the main pic.
I tried using that photo already a few months back, and, comparing it with photos of other prime ministers, I grew restless as there was not a good looking, professional, portrait-like image of Margaret Thatcher. I put in a request at the Graphics Lab (here) just to see what could be done with the best (and really only) available photos. That really didn't help much, so I contacted the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, and they provided me with a professional looking, upright image.
So that is the story. As was implied, I do not favor the change that you made. Based on the evidence above, it is incorrect to say that the most recent images of the subjects should be used. Please respond if you wish. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The photographs of Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford, and Bill Clinton should be updated as well. Photographs should show what people look like - not some artifical set up portrait that only ever looked like them once in a photographic studio. It should be reality - not obvious propaganda from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Scowling is what Thatcher usually did. She rarely smiled unless some photographer told her to. An even more recent and accurate photograph would be even better. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Artificial portrait? Propaganda? It sounds as if you don't know what you are talking about, my friend. The portrait is not fake, made up or anything like that. It is a good looking photograph of Margaret Thatcher, and here at this encyclopedia we are supposed to have good looking photographs of people. If doesn't matter where the photo comes from, who provided it or whatnot, as long as it is a free use photograph that it looks professional. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" -- I've assumed good faith earlier and my good faith in your actions is starting to quickly dwindle as it seems you have an alterior motive for advocating this photo over this one. The first one does not look professional, the second one does. I'm starting to feel that your personal beliefs regarding Thatcher are infringing on our ability to choose which photo to use. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are incorrect, my friend, in saying that we should use the most up-to-date photos for everyone on Wikipedia. The reason why the pictures of Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Ford, and Mr. Clinton have not changed is simply because those are the best looking, high resolution, well formatted photographs. And Please stop reverting me on the page. The burden is on the editor who replaces or changes material to show how it is pertinent you don't have a consensus to replace the image. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike you, I have lived in Britain for her entire political career, as well as before and since. I am far more aware of her because unlike you, living in the U.S., I was seeing her on television and reading reports concerning her on a daily basis. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" is precisely true. It would be very obvious to you if you had lived in the same country as her for decades. The Maragaret Thatcher Foundation are extreme Thatacherites. It's like saying that the Nazi party have provided us with a really nice photo of Hitler. The priority is not nice looking photographs. It is accurate photographs. She has never looked like that apart from a visit long ago to the photographer's studio. It is obviously a staged photograph that was used for propaganda in order to try to give her a good image. That photographs is decades old. Have a look at photographs of how she looks now. You wouldn't recognise her if all you knew was the photograph you'd added. "And Please stop reverting me on the page." You don't have consensus on the page. I have shown how it is pertinent to change it. I don't have to agree with you or comply with what you want solely because you want me to. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you always want to get your way you'll have to set up your own web site. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. O Fenian (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)