| Revision as of 18:30, 29 September 2014 editLx 121 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,531 edits Undid revision 627575715 by DD2K (talk) you dont get to edit another person's comments like that← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:38, 29 September 2014 edit undoLx 121 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,531 edits →edward furlongNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| --actually, you ''are'' the user who tried to cite an ''essay'' as ''policy'', & then never replied further on the talk page; & has shown ''no other interest in working on the article'', that i can find any record of... so that makes for a pretty weak 3rd opposing vote. ] (]) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | --actually, you ''are'' the user who tried to cite an ''essay'' as ''policy'', & then never replied further on the talk page; & has shown ''no other interest in working on the article'', that i can find any record of... so that makes for a pretty weak 3rd opposing vote. ] (]) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ''follow up'' -- please don't edit ''MY'' comments on ''your'' talk page. if you have a problem with something i say, by all means ''file a complaint''; but i don't appreciate your '''changing''' what i've said. | |||
| & as regards your edit comment, you are ''not'' the "final judge" of what is & is not included on article pages. you have also ''failed to present a valid agruement for removing the image''. i have posted @ the article's talk page. you are the one who hasn't said anything there since your original comment, several months ago. i wouldn't have ''bothered'' contacting you here, if you hadn't decided to "jump back in" & remove the image again; while mis-representing the state of consensus. ] (]) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:38, 29 September 2014
RealClearPolitics
Look, I don't what to get into another dispute about this. My only concern is that the source does not say that they are conservative but that they have the same concerns conservatives have. Whether or not you agree isn't really an issue, because that's my position. So what can we agree on in terms of wording that would satisfy both of us? I'm fine saying they are conservative leaning if there is a source for that. Heck, I'm fine with saying it was founded by conservatives if there is a better source that says so explicitly. So what language would you propose?--v/r - TP 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I saw the revert, but haven't had time to fully check out what's going on again. I was under the impression that it was agreed to leave in the descriptor, but evidently I was wrong. I do know this has been going on for the past 6-7 years or so, with the descriptor being there most of that time. I'll have to check it out and see. Dave Dial (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The last I remember on the issue was that it was removed and we went to dispute resolution, we all left comments but the DR volunteer was inactive and the case was eventually archived.--v/r - TP 00:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
United Parcel Service
This was not a significant edit, but I think that reverting my edit to "Grumman Olson" is wrong. I changed "Grumman Olson" to "Morgan Olson" as the company/product name changed more than 10 years ago (2003). These vehicles are not only old vehicles - brand new Morgan Olson vehicles are being purchased by UPS today. Further, the link "Grumman Olson" takes us to the Morgan Olson article. A google search for Grumman Olson does the same. If the term "Grumman Olson" needs to be mentioned anywhere then it's only on the Morgan Olson page as part of that company's history. Dariomur (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dariomur, yes, that is why I corrected myself 3 minutes later with the 'oops' edit summary. Then I fixed the wikilink to the Utilimaster Corporation article. So I think all is as it should be, unless you see some other problem with the article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't see the correction at the time, sorry. All's well, thanks. Dariomur (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, I definitely mistakenly reverted you and you must have received that message. Thanks for the messages. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Rudolf Hess: Revision history
Okay, you bumped my unfinished work. Now you're obliged to engage on the talk page! No hard feelings, I look forward to continuing the discussion. Womby838 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Mortal Kombat vs Marsha Kinder
Not content with the fact that critical theory is already Marxist she adds even more Marxism to it, and is a feminist too. An yes, Marxist feminism is a thing. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Also don't remove 12 kilobytes of content to make a point of disagreeing with 2 words. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, do not make mass changes to articles without an edit summary. Most especially, do not add descriptors of people that can be controversial without sourcing. And Talk page consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, do not mass reverts CONTEST THE FUCKING THINGS YOU DISAGREE FUCK. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it really hard to remove smething manually? Is it? --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is it hard to not sneak in your unsourced anti-feminist bullshit into articles? More editors should keep their eyes on you. You are a detriment to the project, and very much so. Dave Dial (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
edward furlong
"consensus is against it" -- REALLY!? how do you get that conclusion, exactly?
because if you read through the ENTIRE talk page & the article's edit history, you get 2 users who are camped out on the page, dedicatedly reverting any new material that is unfavourable to the subject, for wp:bullshit reasons.
you get one walk-on (& then walk-off) opinion supporting them, citing an essay; a person who never bothered to reply further in the discussion, & has made no significant edits on the article, other than a revert in favour of their position.
THEN, on the other side of it, there are at least about a HALF DOZEN as many people who have either :
a) added the picture.
b) restored the picture.
and/or c) spoken in favour of using the mugshot, on the article page.
- 3:3
- AND the 3 users opposing inclusion of the photograph have not been able to come up with a SINGLE VALID POLICY OR GUIDELINE to support their position. Lx 121 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
NOT TO MENTION, that you yourself have completely disregarded the merits of the discussion to do a very arbitrary (& innaccurate) "snout count".
please edit more carefully in the future.
if you have any actual interest in working on the article in question, kindly submit your comments on the talk page there.
respectfully,
Lx 121 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
--actually, you are the user who tried to cite an essay as policy, & then never replied further on the talk page; & has shown no other interest in working on the article, that i can find any record of... so that makes for a pretty weak 3rd opposing vote. Lx 121 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
follow up -- please don't edit MY comments on your talk page. if you have a problem with something i say, by all means file a complaint; but i don't appreciate your changing what i've said.
& as regards your edit comment, you are not the "final judge" of what is & is not included on article pages. you have also failed to present a valid agruement for removing the image. i have posted @ the article's talk page. you are the one who hasn't said anything there since your original comment, several months ago. i wouldn't have bothered contacting you here, if you hadn't decided to "jump back in" & remove the image again; while mis-representing the state of consensus. Lx 121 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)