| Revision as of 22:40, 26 June 2013 editWerieth (talk | contribs)54,678 edits archive← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 27 June 2013 edit undoA Fellow Editor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,962 edits →Something to hide?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read ] (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at ]. Please come explain your rationale.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ::I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read ] (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at ]. Please come explain your rationale.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::P.S. I am no longer following her. Let's meet there.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | :::P.S. I am no longer following her. Let's meet there.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == == | |||
| I find it interesting that a strong proponent of strict orthodoxy such as yourself Werieth would label . Obviously this is your talk-page and your welcome to delete or archive as you see fit. But I find it curious —perhaps telling— that you felt the need to do so under a false summary. As —unless I've missed something— does not in fact include the removed thread. | |||
| I find it of further interest to note that when you chose to reply to one of my comments with a deletion it was also at a point where the concept of ''context'' had been introduced. Do you have some sort of semantic aversion to the word "''context"''? Or is it the concept itself which you find challenging? I can try to illustrate with examples and synonyms if that would be helpful to you. | |||
| --] (]) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:08, 27 June 2013
This seems unfair...
...why'd you take out the image of April, May and June Duck from the Duck family article? Would it be better off in their Disney Wiki article instead? Just wondering.~~LDEJRuff~~ 1:31, 23 June, 2013 (UTC)
Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images
It is common to include source artwork in Roy Lichtenstein articles. Why are you coming down on this one. I have reverted your edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have re-removed the files for failing WP:NFCC#8. You dont need 5 images for two paragraphs. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Okay_Hot-Shot.2C_Okay.21_source_images. Please come explain your rationale.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I am no longer following her. Let's meet there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Okay_Hot-Shot.2C_Okay.21_source_images. Please come explain your rationale.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Something to hide?
I find it interesting that a strong proponent of strict orthodoxy such as yourself Werieth would label a deletion with an edit summary of "archived". Obviously this is your talk-page and your welcome to delete or archive as you see fit. But I find it curious —perhaps telling— that you felt the need to do so under a false summary. As —unless I've missed something— your archive does not in fact include the removed thread.
I find it of further interest to note that when you previously chose to reply to one of my comments with a deletion it was also at a point where the concept of context had been introduced. Do you have some sort of semantic aversion to the word "context"? Or is it the concept itself which you find challenging? I can try to illustrate with examples and synonyms if that would be helpful to you.