| Revision as of 20:19, 15 August 2013 editGabeMc (talk | contribs)File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,831 edits →Joe diffs: socking as an IP← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:28, 15 August 2013 edit undoJoefromrandb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,280 edits →Joe diffs: that's not gonna flyNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ] | |||
| ===Joe diffs on his talk page, August 15=== | ===Joe diffs on his talk page, August 15=== | ||
Revision as of 20:28, 15 August 2013
If you are an unregistered user you may contact me at User talk:GabeMc/IP
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is GabeMc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
Paul McCartney
Re his awards: they don't come bigger than a knighthood. If the article is going to have a section titled "Awards" then the major awards have to be listed, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the text or not. There is no rule against referring to something in two sections. On the other hand, if you omit the MBE and the Knighthood from the section, anyone who looks at it critically will know immediately that something is lacking. It is simply not encyclopedic to have a section headed "Awards" and then leave them out of it! If the doubling up really offends you, then remove it from the chronology and state it more fully in the "Awards" section.
Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with the notability of the awards; it has to do with not repeating information in an FA. Also, its not about offending me, its about pleasing FAC reviewers, who would not allow material to be repeated in two places. FWIW, I completely agree with not repeating material in multiple locations so I've moved both the MBE and the Knighthood honours to Awards and removed them from the chronology. Cheers! GabeMc 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Joe diffs
personal attack personal attack profanity canvassing/conspiring to cause disruption battleground mentality personal attack in edit summary intentional restoration of a spelling mistake battleground mentality threatening a revenge FAR personal attack w/profanity
Edit warring at Roger Waters
Joe diffs on his talk page, August 15
- asked to stop personally attacking others, accuses them of trolling and being a kid
- when pointed out that that is also a personal attack, to say nothing of being inaccurate , accuses them of trolling and being a kid
- when explained what trolling is and why asking editors to stop personal attacks isn’t trolling, accuses them of trolling and being a kid
This is one of countless examples of Joe’s incompetence and/or disregard for rules, particularly personal attacks. It illustrates the problem that whenever Joe receives criticism of any kind, his response is to personally attack editors critical of him. pbp 19:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment?
Hi. I'm close to losing my composure (probably have already) at a POV discussion here with two editors who regularly contribute to the article in question and have been contesting what I feel are my improvements to the article. If it's not too much of a bother, would you care to chime in? An impartial view would be much appreciated, particularly one that doesn't continuously make reference to their own personal "knowledge" of the topic. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Joe RFC/U
Let's do it! You might also want to take a look at what's gone on on his talk page, where I ask him to stop personally attacking me (and you), and he says nothing but "Go troll somewhere else kid", even when I inform him that I'm neither a kid nor a troll pbp 18:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)