| Revision as of 12:55, 18 June 2007 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2007/June.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:45, 12 July 2007 edit undoLonewolf BC (talk | contribs)4,656 edits Mass date-delinkingNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archive = User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |archive = User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Date links == | |||
| You removed date links from ] citing ]. I see from this talk page that you have been asked before not to do this. I am asking you again: please do not do this! ] 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Could we at least agree that there is no need to link 'February'? ] 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also find this a bit annoying (in my case at ]). In the absence of any policy prohibiting single-year links, can I ask you to hold fire until it has been discussed a bit more at ]? -- ] 11:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::My intention is to improve articles, certainly not to annoy you. Thanks for taking it there. I look forward to seeing the debate there. ] 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Indisciminate mass year-delinking is forbidden, just like other stylistic-warring campaigns (e.g. BC/AD vs BCE/CE or "American" spelling versus "British" spelling). Please cease and desist, in the lack of a consensus in your favour. I don't mean to sound unpleasant, but if you persist you are liable to be blocked -- even permanently.<br>-- ] 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{{icon|] }}} '''This is your last warning about your indiscriminate mass de-linking of year-alone dates.'''<br> | |||
| I am sorry to see that you have returned to this activity. '''Stop these edits now''', and desist from them them unless you managed to get consensus to make them. The language at ] remains the same, and you do not even appear in its talk-page history between 12 June and now. It therefore seems that you have not even tried to get consensus for these edits, but instead have just waited and then begun them again, hoping that it would be overlooked. Don't expect to be warned about this again. -- ] 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:45, 12 July 2007
edit count | edit summary usage
Date links
You removed date links from Maurice Couve de Murville citing wp:context. I see from this talk page that you have been asked before not to do this. I am asking you again: please do not do this! Scolaire 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could we at least agree that there is no need to link 'February'? Lightmouse 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also find this a bit annoying (in my case at reinforced concrete). In the absence of any policy prohibiting single-year links, can I ask you to hold fire until it has been discussed a bit more at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? -- Kvetner 11:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- My intention is to improve articles, certainly not to annoy you. Thanks for taking it there. I look forward to seeing the debate there. Lightmouse 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Indisciminate mass year-delinking is forbidden, just like other stylistic-warring campaigns (e.g. BC/AD vs BCE/CE or "American" spelling versus "British" spelling). Please cease and desist, in the lack of a consensus in your favour. I don't mean to sound unpleasant, but if you persist you are liable to be blocked -- even permanently.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning about your indiscriminate mass de-linking of year-alone dates.
I am sorry to see that you have returned to this activity. Stop these edits now, and desist from them them unless you managed to get consensus to make them. The language at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) remains the same, and you do not even appear in its talk-page history between 12 June and now. It therefore seems that you have not even tried to get consensus for these edits, but instead have just waited and then begun them again, hoping that it would be overlooked. Don't expect to be warned about this again. -- Lonewolf BC 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)