Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) |
Frinton100 (talk | contribs) →How many more times....: new section |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:* "An admin needs to look". I am amazed to see that you have just passed the eighth anniversary of your first edit. And in all you time you have still not learned that decisions here are taken by consensus of all editors. Admins are merely janitors who clear up messes. This <u>editor</u> agrees with Miesianiacal: you are edit warring, bullying and generally carrying on in your usual fashion which will eventually get you banned. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
:* "An admin needs to look". I am amazed to see that you have just passed the eighth anniversary of your first edit. And in all you time you have still not learned that decisions here are taken by consensus of all editors. Admins are merely janitors who clear up messes. This <u>editor</u> agrees with Miesianiacal: you are edit warring, bullying and generally carrying on in your usual fashion which will eventually get you banned. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
:I didn't write "before Mabelina does any more damage", as though I'd determined you were causing damage. I wrote "I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much ''possible'' damage", indicating it hadn't yet been settled whether you were doing damage or not; that was part of what the discussion was meant to settle. Please read more carefully. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
:I didn't write "before Mabelina does any more damage", as though I'd determined you were causing damage. I wrote "I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much ''possible'' damage", indicating it hadn't yet been settled whether you were doing damage or not; that was part of what the discussion was meant to settle. Please read more carefully. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
== How many more times.... == |
|||
....do you need to be told about wikipedia policy on capitalisation and over-linking? |
|||
This was not simply you creating a new chunk of text and leaving others to tidy up, it was you actively correcting things I had done to bring the [[Sir George Young, 6th Baronet]] article into line with the MOS. For example, we have been through at great length the capitalisation of "ward". I have explained to you that the MOS requires consistent capitalisation in RS in order for wikipedia to treat a word as one that should be capitalised. We have seen through our previous discussion that there is not consistent capitalisation of ward, and that even relevant UK legislation does not capitalise it. Therefore it should not be capitalised. |
|||
You are also linking things that don't need to be linked, and some of your links are wrong anyway - for example, "he lost his [[seat]] in 1971. Have you checked which article that links to? It's irrelevant to the article. There is no need to have a link for "seat" at that point in the article. |
|||
And re. his religion, the article about him being a churchwarden and synod member says that he ''was'' these things - it does not make any reference to him being a self-identifying Anglican now. He may have held those posts several decades ago. [[User:Frinton100|Frinton100]] ([[User talk:Frinton100|talk]]) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:29, 21 January 2016
Lord Athlone
@Miesianiacal: could you be upfront about your raison-d'être with regard to Lord Athlone & other MOS issues which you seem intent on escalating, whilst deleting my comments on your Talk page? M Mabelina (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your question is incomprehensible.
- If you want something changed in the article, stop trying to push it in by revert; start a discussion at the talk page and outline each change you wish to make. If consensus supports the change, then it can be made. This is basic editing process you're already well aware of. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly you do understand my point, & since you were so quick to mention EDIT WAR is that the route you want to go down? I don't. I should rather get on with improving Wiki. I know there is a big issue with regard to MOS but those edits I made have been very very well covered at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Till soon mon ami. M Mabelina (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- You edit war. There is nothing unclear about that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is very convenient no doubt for you to denigrate my sub-par grammar! What I spot (which I am now going to rectify) are typos - but if you truly think my command of the English language is not up to scratch then please try to launch an enquiry. I am not sure how far it will get you or even what you hope to achieve by it, other than cause yet another massive argument, like you did at MOS. M Mabelina (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- You edit war. There is nothing unclear about that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly you do understand my point, & since you were so quick to mention EDIT WAR is that the route you want to go down? I don't. I should rather get on with improving Wiki. I know there is a big issue with regard to MOS but those edits I made have been very very well covered at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Till soon mon ami. M Mabelina (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Miesianiacal: Could you set down for all to see your thoughts - all I caught a glimpse of was a threat TO NEVER POST ON YOUR TALK PAGE AGAIN. This is entirely unreasonable behaviour - tantamount to bullying in my view. M Mabelina (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm logging out - an ADMIN needs to look into this behaviour surely (why should it turn nasty as soon as Miesianiacal arrives on the scene)? Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- View it as you wish, but it is not unreasonable; in fact, it's allowable per guidelines: WP:NOBAN: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Very technical - you obviously know much about Wiki procedures, but what is most disturbing is that that user seems to have issued a second warning (to me? presumably..) without any visible alert to me nor as far I can see any evidence of what that warning entails (apart from the subsequent message above). All I can glean from this is that Miesianiacal would rather have me banned than being able to contribute to Wiki constructively & without due recourse - not pleasant I must say, but then he did launch that MOS enquiry about PC & Rt Hon by stating "before Mabelina does any more damage". Please Miesianiacal STOP behaving like this, if poss. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- "An admin needs to look". I am amazed to see that you have just passed the eighth anniversary of your first edit. And in all you time you have still not learned that decisions here are taken by consensus of all editors. Admins are merely janitors who clear up messes. This editor agrees with Miesianiacal: you are edit warring, bullying and generally carrying on in your usual fashion which will eventually get you banned. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't write "before Mabelina does any more damage", as though I'd determined you were causing damage. I wrote "I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage", indicating it hadn't yet been settled whether you were doing damage or not; that was part of what the discussion was meant to settle. Please read more carefully. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
How many more times....
....do you need to be told about wikipedia policy on capitalisation and over-linking?
This was not simply you creating a new chunk of text and leaving others to tidy up, it was you actively correcting things I had done to bring the Sir George Young, 6th Baronet article into line with the MOS. For example, we have been through at great length the capitalisation of "ward". I have explained to you that the MOS requires consistent capitalisation in RS in order for wikipedia to treat a word as one that should be capitalised. We have seen through our previous discussion that there is not consistent capitalisation of ward, and that even relevant UK legislation does not capitalise it. Therefore it should not be capitalised.
You are also linking things that don't need to be linked, and some of your links are wrong anyway - for example, "he lost his seat in 1971. Have you checked which article that links to? It's irrelevant to the article. There is no need to have a link for "seat" at that point in the article.
And re. his religion, the article about him being a churchwarden and synod member says that he was these things - it does not make any reference to him being a self-identifying Anglican now. He may have held those posts several decades ago. Frinton100 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)