This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 21 February 2009 (→Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war: I'm bad and need banned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:15, 21 February 2009 by Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (→Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war: I'm bad and need banned)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please note there is now a designated area for complaining about me here (I do check it from time to time). This talk page is now only for important and interesting matters. Giano (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Old messages are at:
- User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (2004)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (2009)
Essays:
Please leave new messages below
Buckingham Palace introduction revision edit war
Dear Giano II. Indeed, with your summary reversion of my edit after a clear injunction that whomever disagreed with it should improve it, not merely revert it, it is taking on the look of an edit war. I take it you like big content heavy Intros, then? Would you be one of the page custodians you referred to? Please advise. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of people watch that page, because a lot of people have to watch it. An open review went on of the article not once, but twice, and then a third time. Consensus among voters at FAC, then at two FARC's, was that the article was best in its present form. Any change to the status quo needs to have an extraordinarily compelling need to overcome a wide consensus. Arguments over one person's preference for how a lede should look are beside the point. Yes, there are people out there who think that lead paragraphs should be one-liners. I have my view of the mentality that prefers staccato data over syntactic information, but the essential factor in this edit war is this: this is not a matter of one person vs. another or one person's preferences being superior to another. It is a person with an itch vs. a consensus. Misplaced Pages works best, when it works at all, when there is consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- e/c with Geogre. Giano not being around, I'll respond to you, wikiuser100, hope you don't mind. You issued an injunction? (Wiktionary: "an order; a mandate; a decree; a command; a precept; a direction.") I believe it's not about what Giano likes or doesn't like, but about the Featured article criteria. See point 2: a featured article "follows the style guidelines" (=WP:MOS), including (point 2a) the MOS guideline for the length of lead sections. Compare this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC).
- Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Woo, bad Scott bad.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't F with an FA. And when the MOS is on your case, then best run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)