User talk:Roger Davies - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 04:07, 2 September 2013 (→Fair enough: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:07, 2 September 2013 by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) (→Fair enough: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This user is lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject

This user is an administrator

This user is a member of the Arbitration Committee

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Misplaced Pages'

Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

Traffic report: Reddit creep

Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Misplaced Pages

Fair enough

You voted "Fair enough" for a proposal to restrict me. The proposal is very general and would include to restrict me from adding infoboxes to my own articles and to articles in uncontroversial areas, the majority that is, - classical music and architecture are rather exceptions. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "fair". I listed a few cases and ask you to please comment what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just been back and fixed another anomaly, with a copyedit to the basic finding. I think the point here is that adding infoboxes may in and of itself be controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. Controversial meta activity has a great capacity to disrupt and that is undesirable in a cooperative venture. On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial. Finally, in this context, by "fair enough" I simply meant "that's reasonable". Roger Davies 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)