User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2011/April

Churches

Well, I didn't state that the church contained a silver cup - I said that a survey in 1937 noted that it contained a silver cup. As the church has been closed for a number of years, I strongly suspect that it would have been removed then. As the information about the organ is available in a reliable published source, and as Wikipedia is not censored, I'm going to reinstate the material. Thank you for your other edits to the article, though. Bencherlite^Talk 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an organist myself, as you might be able to spot from my user page, so don't think that I take the issue lightly. By your logic, no article about any church (redundant or still in use) should refer to an organ, lest thieves be inspired to break in and steal pipes during the hours of darkness. Nor should one refer to a roof, I suppose, in case a thief thinks there might be lead on it. In fact, writing about a church at all is just inviting trouble, isn't it? No. And I'm afraid I just don't see that a potential thief, reading this article, would think "Oh, so there was a silver cup in 1937, was there? Let's break in and see whether someone accidentally left it lying around when the church closed down several years ago." Describing my edits as foolish, irresponsible, careless and absolutely stupid strikes me as rather hysterical, I'm afraid, as does your instruction to delete your message from my user page after reading, as if my talk page were a particular magnet for Anglesey burglars. Bencherlite^Talk 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Email me if you want (I have email through Wikipedia enabled), but I can't think of a reason why I should go first. I wonder whether this discussion might benefit from outside input - perhaps the Content noticeboard would be a place to go? Bencherlite^Talk 01:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abigail and Brittany Hensel

I hope you realize that you are already in violation of wp:3rr. I won't file a complaint now, just warn you formally, but I will if you make a fifth revert.

And BTW, your version with "the" makes sense, it has the implied "one" or "of the two" - just as my more concise version has the implied "than her sister." μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please don't revisit old issues on my talk page due to our current interaction. You are not privy to those interactions and your remarks amount to hounding me. The fact that I have chosen not to remove those old disputes, unlike others who erase or archive them to remove them from public view, doesn't make me in any way guilty or deserving of your lecturing me. I was very civil here, I reverted you only as a matter of style and since (1) you violated 3rr and (2) consensus was against you. I did not file a 3rr complaint. I don't mean to hound you either, so please erase this last edit after you have read it. It is not meant for the eyes of future readers of this page, only for you in a spirit of good will. If you have further comments please place them here. I will watch this space. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As you request. If your reversions were merely a "matter of style" rather than a matter of correct grammar, then it was hardly worth the amount of persistence that you demonstrated. I find your manner offensive and your understanding of English grammar rather less secure than you imagine it to be.

I am now setting off to correct the grammatical problem on the A&BH page (if you have not already done so) and I do not expect to be trailed and further provoked. Amandajm (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:3rr complaint

Be aware I have filed a complaint for your edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Amandajm_reported_by_User:Medeis_.28Result:_.29

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amandajm reported by User:Medeis (Result: no action) closed without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor Duckett

I stand corrected and fully deserved to be chided. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for correcting the mess I created with Salaì. Regards SoWhy 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you

RE:Indian rolling. You made the edits I was somehow hoping for; I forced myself into tuning my rhetoric down a bit since, y'know, I figured I'm probably too outraged too be neutral. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost

I would prefer it if before making bold changes to this article you first raised the matter on its talk page, as you have made several errors I have been forced to correct. Parrot of Doom 11:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)