| Revision as of 11:23, 10 December 2007 editShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:20, 13 December 2007 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,196 edits →Blocked: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :Hi Guys, feel free to delete this if you feel I am intruding, but this is why I keep harping on about the style bizzo. While it might be a "right" style or a "wrong" style, it is ''a'' style and with it we can move forward without the annoyances of really what are minor points of "how things look", after all, WP doesn't really have anything to say on the detail of how things look, just some generalisms. This is why I harken back to other articles of similar countries whose article's editors have done this before and sure, we can do the same (ie/ spend hours of time) or just accept the style in question for what it is. The latter makes life a bit easier for us all, leaving us hours of time to hound each other over other things :-) <PS: joke there>. As I said, if you think inappropriate, feel free to delete. ] (]) 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | :Hi Guys, feel free to delete this if you feel I am intruding, but this is why I keep harping on about the style bizzo. While it might be a "right" style or a "wrong" style, it is ''a'' style and with it we can move forward without the annoyances of really what are minor points of "how things look", after all, WP doesn't really have anything to say on the detail of how things look, just some generalisms. This is why I harken back to other articles of similar countries whose article's editors have done this before and sure, we can do the same (ie/ spend hours of time) or just accept the style in question for what it is. The latter makes life a bit easier for us all, leaving us hours of time to hound each other over other things :-) <PS: joke there>. As I said, if you think inappropriate, feel free to delete. ] (]) 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Blocked == | |||
| As per the ANI discussion of which you are aware, you have been blocked for 48 h for harassing other users. ] ] 07:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:20, 13 December 2007
⇒ Start a new Talk topic
Comment re editing
May I suggest that using the talk page, rather than revert warring, is probably going to be the best way to resolve this one. I notice when these matters come up, people end up fighting quite hard over points that are dreadfully minor in scope by comparison to the text in the article. In Indigenous Australians we had edit warring over a single line of text which saw people banned. In Kevin Rudd and John Howard we've seen image warring, leading to a consensus which supported you on one image and Timeshift on another. Now it's election dates. I understand your desire to improve the appearance of the article, but it's clear at this time that rambunctious determination alone will not solve it. Orderinchaos 08:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Orderinchaos. I don't consider it rambunctious to remove material that presently lacks consensus and is factually misleading (Howard did not contest the 1987 as Prime Minister; if anything, the election would be more appropriate listed under Member of Parliament). I agree that robust talkpage discussion needs to take place, and that this appears to be happening. While it does, non-consensual content should remain off the article, especially that which is misleading. --Brendan 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Guys, feel free to delete this if you feel I am intruding, but this is why I keep harping on about the style bizzo. While it might be a "right" style or a "wrong" style, it is a style and with it we can move forward without the annoyances of really what are minor points of "how things look", after all, WP doesn't really have anything to say on the detail of how things look, just some generalisms. This is why I harken back to other articles of similar countries whose article's editors have done this before and sure, we can do the same (ie/ spend hours of time) or just accept the style in question for what it is. The latter makes life a bit easier for us all, leaving us hours of time to hound each other over other things :-) <PS: joke there>. As I said, if you think inappropriate, feel free to delete. Shot info (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
As per the ANI discussion of which you are aware, you have been blocked for 48 h for harassing other users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)