User talk:178.128.168.140

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Members of the Order of the Companions of Honour, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hello71 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit warring

It does not become okay to edit war merely because you are willing to do it. If you continue, I will report it, which could lead to your being blocked.

This was a major change that should have been discussed. Had people bothered to do that, they would have found out that a list article with hundreds of images is way too big for some peoples' computers to handle. If the images are to be apart of the thing, the "Lords Temporal" section will need to be broken up into several subarticles to make the load size manageable.

Also, you need to be more careful about what you are reverting. That are several link corrections and leave-of-absence updates. -Rrius (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't know how Wikipedia works. When you want to make a change and it is challenged, you need to get consensus for the change. In the meantime, the prior version should remain. If and only if you achieve consensus, you can restore your changes. See WP:Consensus, WP:BRD. You also need to realise that people with slower browsers have an equal right to use Wikipedia. An article with hundreds of images loads so slowly on some computers that the page becomes effectively unavailable. Creating that situation is wrong, but all the more so when it creates that situation for one of the few people who bothers to update the page. I have already proposed one possible compromise: splitting the list into several pages so that the images to not create the strain they do. Creating five or six subarticles based on alphabet would do nicely.

Incidentally, you seem to think that you are correcting links, with several, such as Lords Beecham and McConnell, you keep reverting to incorrect links. As it stands, each of the titles that has been in issue is now correct. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---