Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs) →WP:VA: new section |
→Your recent edits: Narendra Modi: thanks for the gratuitous condescension |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
There are a number of discussions occurring at [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded]] that may be of interest to you <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |
There are a number of discussions occurring at [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded]] that may be of interest to you <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Your recent edits: [[Narendra Modi]] == |
|||
Please discuss changes made to the article on the discussion page first. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] {[[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|c]]} 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:There is no such requirement.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
In this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=549266564&oldid=549199641] you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I had left a notification on your talk page. The article has been edited by several users before and there are many portions of it which are currently in dispute. In such a scenario, it is always courteous to leave a comment on the talk page before jumping in and making changes to the lead section of an article. The biography article is about an individual, not the organizations that he is affiliated with. The qualities of the organizations are best described on their own pages, which is the practice on Wikipedia. For instance, Barack Obama's page does not say that he belongs to the left-liberal Democratic Party in the United States. The would be wide generalization. Leaving English translations of the names of organizations is neither helpful nor the practice on Wikipedia (apart from the fact that the translation was wholly inaccurate). If you require assistance with editing, it is always best to seek help on the talk page of the article so that other users can, if possible, support you with your request. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] {[[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|c]]} 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't need help with editing thanks. I have been here quite some time and have a wideranging experience of editing contentious pages and I have twice as many edits as you so drop the condescenscion please. Calling the US democratic party "left liberal" is false and POV, whereas the description of the BJP that I included in fact was sourced and came from the wikipedia article about the party, as did the translations. The article on Obama does describe his political views and proposed and supported legislation.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:35, 8 April 2013
KP
You are preaching to the converted. Why not just let things on the talk page develop for now? There is method in my madness, I promise you. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me to be a very useful method to ask for sources. There are of course many Indian Hindu nationalist sources that repeat Monier-Williams claim that the kashmiri pandits are the "purest aryans" as if it held scientific value today 200 years later. He can produce as many of those sources as he likes and it still doesn't make it so - but it does make us have to spend time showing that they are non-reliable every time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I realise that but there is still a method. I am just not willing to share it because he'll wikilawyer about collusion etc. He's made an accusation of tag-teaming in an edit summary, which is complete nonsense but typical behaviour. I rather think you and he have had dealings previously, in which case you will probably already know this. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't remember having interacted with him in the past, no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I realise that but there is still a method. I am just not willing to share it because he'll wikilawyer about collusion etc. He's made an accusation of tag-teaming in an edit summary, which is complete nonsense but typical behaviour. I rather think you and he have had dealings previously, in which case you will probably already know this. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Gender identity article
Hello, Maunus. You may be interested to know that an IP has replied to you in an old discussion you had at the Gender identity article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not partiuclarly, no. Thanks anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:VA
There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits: Narendra Modi
Please discuss changes made to the article on the discussion page first. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such requirement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
In this edit[1] you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had left a notification on your talk page. The article has been edited by several users before and there are many portions of it which are currently in dispute. In such a scenario, it is always courteous to leave a comment on the talk page before jumping in and making changes to the lead section of an article. The biography article is about an individual, not the organizations that he is affiliated with. The qualities of the organizations are best described on their own pages, which is the practice on Wikipedia. For instance, Barack Obama's page does not say that he belongs to the left-liberal Democratic Party in the United States. The would be wide generalization. Leaving English translations of the names of organizations is neither helpful nor the practice on Wikipedia (apart from the fact that the translation was wholly inaccurate). If you require assistance with editing, it is always best to seek help on the talk page of the article so that other users can, if possible, support you with your request. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need help with editing thanks. I have been here quite some time and have a wideranging experience of editing contentious pages and I have twice as many edits as you so drop the condescenscion please. Calling the US democratic party "left liberal" is false and POV, whereas the description of the BJP that I included in fact was sourced and came from the wikipedia article about the party, as did the translations. The article on Obama does describe his political views and proposed and supported legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)