Hosta

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Of course, I am not going to pursue the change because I see no reason to endure the abuse. Your kind words allow me to move along and not look back. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I thought of taking a crack at it but really, I don't have the patience to deal with tedious people on Wikpedia anymore, so it's good to see someone stepping up. Jtrainor (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had an alert from your post at Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but saw you self-reverted and deleted the ping to me so I presume you're no longer interested in the POV:Section tag or my reasons for it. If you do want more then feel welcome to ping back or post to my TALK.

I did post to the later section "Article Tags" asking for clarification of topic/intent, which may be OBE anyway as the edit-warring has removed that tag, and the section tag, and the image note about dispute. I did put in a few simple items in response, in case you're looking for something basic or to go to the specific poster if you're looking for the reasons behind a specific tag placement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decided at the time that the post was unnecessary as there was already a similar discussion taking place. Please disregard it.

I'm not familiar with OBE. Could you tell me what that means or direct me to a page that explains it? –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for "thousands of rounds" because it is the lead paragraph and there are no references used there. Without one, it should not be changed. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that News.com.au was being used as the source for "thousands." I'm afraid they are the only one, and more credible, US-based sources like CNN and NBC are saying hundreds. So I've changed it to hundreds in the lead and body, with the two new refs. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add news.com.au to the lead a few minutes ago but my mobile browser botched it up. My apologies. Yes, let's keep it at hundreds.

about the SPLC as a source of information generated out of the List of CSA monuments article and considered adding:
3. Also since the SLPC is an organization whose existence is based 100% on donations, does it have a financial interest in presenting this material in this way and is wikipedia thus aiding in that endeavor?
or something like that. To me this is a concern, but this is your posting so I didn't want to just cut in. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added something similar. Does that help? –dlthewave ☎ 01:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing this portion of the comment? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed one of my comments with this edit [1]. I've since restored it. Geogene (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop moving conversations from your user talk page to article talk pages. Regardless of how you choose to operate your talk page, it is the appropriate place to discuss user behavior, and edit summaries such as "this isn't the place" may be confusing to new editors. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I reverted an editor that is not you, yet you contested the revert on my talk page. Reverts to articles should be discussed on the article talk page. So I moved the comment, along with my reply. Another editor, again not you, commented on the remarks I made about the his content, as well as the his remarks about my content, on an article talk page, so again, I moved the comment, along with reply to that talk page. This isn't about "how I choose to operate my talk page", this is about keeping discussions about articles and their content in one place. And if you look at my replies, I am addressing the content, so no, it shouldn't be on my talk page. Further, as I pointed out, neither of these edits were yours, yet you are choosing to involve yourself. This doesn't appear to collegial behaviour on your part, rather more prevocational, despite the fact the last thing I said to you was "I hoped we could move forward and work on the project". Your excuse for all this? "It might confuse new editors" Well, neither of those editors is "new". So please, stop posting comments, on behalf of other editors, to my talk page, when they don't belong there. And also, please stop collapsing, changing and otherwise interfering with my comments on article talk pages. Just focus on article content. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you again collapsed a pair on my posts on an article talk page, making this I believe the third time. I will ask again, that you please not do that. Your edit summary "Collapse non-content-related discussion" and the heading on the collapse template "about editor conduct" is incorrect. Please just focus on the article content and talk page content that serves the article content. There is nothing to be gained by this repetitive, baiting behaviour. Let's please move forward, thank you, - ^theWOLFchild 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move forward and focus on article content as well. However, I have trouble understanding how this edit is a step toward improving the article. Let's try to keep discussions about editors in their respective usertalk spaces. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you've cited has a back and forth about the validity of sources. He's made a comment about the one's I've provided and in return, I've asked him about the ones he's provided. Also, while I was critical of his contributions, I'm not "personalizing" this, but just same, I have asked what parts of my comment he takes issue or would like to see removed. I await an answer on those points, and just recently posted a follow up with ping. So, again, please stop collapsing it. The other section was about the bullet list I reverted. I gave explanation for the edit summary and further explained the revert with cited guidelines in support. I have no idea why you keep collapsing that either, but please stop. When you do it repeatedly, it becomes disruptive. The simple fact is, you have one editor making active additions to an article that another feels are non-neutral and says as much. The first editor feels that is a "personal attack", but really, it's not. If I say "I feel your edits are POV-ish and have an anti-gun tone", that's not an attack. it's a critical comment on the that editors contributions to the article. If I say something more derogatory of his edits, followed by personal insults about his intellects and whatnot, that would be a personal attack. But I haven't done anything of the sort. Just because I'm critical, doesn't mean I'm "personalizing", which is the accusation that seems to pop up often when editors disagree with this particular editor. And by the way... none of these editors are you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to manage this talk page, people are going to disagree, this is a contentious issue and there are going to be disagreements. And despite making no significant changes to the article, I was outright accused of "owning" (I noticed you didn't collapse or otherwise address that). And while those disagreements are typically 'pro-gun' vs. 'anti-gun', this is more of a case of 'unbalanced & non-neutral' vs. 'balanced & neutral". I'd hate to think what would happen if some staunch pro-pun, NRA, 2nd amendment types showed up. I'd probably have the same discussions with them because, as I've said all along, I want the article to stay balanced, neutral, focused on the subject. It's an encyclopaedia article, not a NYT op-ed column. Despite your RfC, (what happened to that btw?) editors are adding more and mass-shooting/assault-whatever info, without consensus or even a discussion. And while that's not "mandatory", it is strongly encouraged (surely you agree with collaboration?). The purpose of your RfC was to see if the community wanted such additions, and before it's even completed. and without any consensus in support, there has been significant content added anyway. Unless your RfC shows a strong consensus in support of this content, most, if not all of it, will have to be removed. That`s why I`ve asked people (repeatedly) to slow down on the mass changes, wait for the RfC, then decide what content should be added, how much of it and in what fashion, based on the RfC. We need to abide by what the community wants, not what a handful editors want. I take it you agree with that ideal? - ^theWOLFchild 10:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (sorry about the length, but I hope this puts the issue to rest - have a good day)[reply]