User talk:Mo ainm/Archives/2010/December

Song

Did you actually look at the diff or did you assume?Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume what? Mo ainm~Talk 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is was a straight revert. I added in the info to make it compliant with LEAD without going against UNDUE.Cptnono (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And what was the assumption? Mo ainm~Talk 19:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That I full-on reverted. Did you actually look at the diff? And don;t template the regulars.Cptnono (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And how about going and templating the other editor then. Seems appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not with you at all what are you talking about? And I am of the opinion that you should template the regulars if they are breaching wikipedia rules or are about to. Mo ainm~Talk 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

did you look at the diff or not? How many times do I have to ask? Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes i looked at your revert, what has that got to do with anything? Mo ainm~Talk 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I wanted to know if you considered the edit unacceptable or if you simply assumed it was the exact same edit. Please go to the talk page and detail how the edit in breach of Wikipedia rules.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It was coming near a breach of 3RR. Mo ainm~Talk 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good thing it wasn't. I understand the rules and didn't need a reminder. Do you not have an opinion on the content?Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986)

Hi Mo ainm

Please see the edit summary of my second removal of the {{recent death}} template which points to why the template is not applicable for this article at present (as does the previous one).

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I saw a protection request made at WP:RPP so added it. It has been turned down now I see. Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I see the connection between protection or a request for it and adding that template. ^Bongo_matic 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if an editor is requesting it is protected it is supposedly getting a lot of edits. Mo ainm~Talk 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: David Rossiter

Hello Mo ainm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of David Rossiter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

johnsy88

Please describe exactly what your percive TFD's edit to be if it isnt vandilism considering these facts

• TFD has reverted a label back to a state which is current under ongoing discussion knowing full well that this issue is not resolved.
• TFD made no effort to come to discussion prior to the removal of Left-wing in the UAF discussion page
• TFD made this edit knowing full well that the article was recently locked by ADMIN due to continuing edit warring over current issue

"Vandalism is any addition, ***removal***, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." WP:VAN

bestJohnsy88 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is what is called a content dispute, as you say vandalism is the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles, dont see any in the edit you reverted with the spurious edit summary. Mo ainm~Talk 21:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

oops, My mistake. TFD was actually edit warring "However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring-WP:VAN"Johnsy88 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you have a look at the recent exchange on the users talk page. I think Johnsy88 is a naive but well intentioned editor who is being used as a useful edit warrior by a few sophisticated and experienced right wing game players. He is showing signs of being open and his response to my mentoring idea is interesting. I'm not sure if I am the right person, you might be! Either way some additional contribution there would be appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Graeme McDowell

Hi. I have reverted your edit at Graeme McDowell to keep the article in line with 99% of all other golfer biography articles. Flagicons are routinely used in infoboxes on these articles and I see no reason why this one should be any different. Also, MOS:FLAG, a section of which you referred to, does not prohibit this practice. If you wish to have further discussion on this, may I suggest starting a thread at WT:GOLF. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 13:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't link to MOSFLAG but to MOSICON Mo ainm~Talk 13:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That section is under MOSFLAG, a subsection of MOSICON, and it does not support your view. Also, please follow WP:BRD. I have suggested where the best place for such a discussion would be. Edit-warring is not productive. _wjemather^bigissue 13:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It sure isn't so whay have you reverted twice? And what I linked to states flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.Mo ainm~Talk 13:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As already stated, the guideline to not prohibit their use, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use them. Equally, it does not give anyone carte blanche to remove them anywhere. Again, this is not the place to have this discussion. I you want all golf articles changed, then WT:GOLF would be the best place. _wjemather^bigissue 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I got sidetracked and completely forgot about you. Let me check that again. DS (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, okay. I found that one randomly, didn't notice the date, and did notice that the subject/author of the article had seemingly admitted that she'd been deleted off Arabic Wikipedia too, so I decided that was enough. But you're right, it was too early. So I've restored it. DS (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem I'm sure it will get deleted when the time runs out. Mo ainm~Talk 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Impersonator acting as Mo ainm

M. Mo ainm, some nefarious villain has obviously impersonated you by stating that they agree with: "The heart of this dispute is what constitutes a good argument and Afd, and what constitutes a crap one..." I believe that the editor who previously stated: "Good block (in reference to a block of the aforementioned party), the attitude that, sure we all know what Mick is like and we just ignore him does nothing for the collaborate nature of the project and we shouldn't have to put up with his constant sniping and attacks. Mo ainm~Talk 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)" and "...Looks that way but I make it a habit not to read the ramblings of Mick I just scan them and look for the comments he invariably makes about HighKing no matter what the subject. Mo ainm~Talk 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)" could not be the same one who is responsible for the "endorsement". LOL Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC).