Talk:2013 Lincolnshire County Council election: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:25, 11 May 2013 editSport and politics (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,749 edits not "acting against consensus"← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:33, 11 May 2013 edit undo94.2.4.145 (talk) →Infobox Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:

	Rubbish. Not "acting against consensus" if the other editor as you claim wants to contribute they can silence though from previous editors does not confer support for your position just because you are doing the same thing as them.Llogging out and editing as an IP is a common tactic to appear as an additional editor to garner support or try and demonstrate support for a position. I am not say that is what is happening here but that must be known. Slowly upgrading is also not acheived by cluttering up the ppages and duplicating information and adding confusing images such as pie charts or separating out "independents" The best way to upgrade these articles is to add the ward by ward results and canidate percentages and change from previous election not adding duplication of information which is at best clutter and at worse confusing to the reader. ] (]) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)		Rubbish. Not "acting against consensus" if the other editor as you claim wants to contribute they can silence though from previous editors does not confer support for your position just because you are doing the same thing as them.Llogging out and editing as an IP is a common tactic to appear as an additional editor to garner support or try and demonstrate support for a position. I am not say that is what is happening here but that must be known. Slowly upgrading is also not acheived by cluttering up the ppages and duplicating information and adding confusing images such as pie charts or separating out "independents" The best way to upgrade these articles is to add the ward by ward results and canidate percentages and change from previous election not adding duplication of information which is at best clutter and at worse confusing to the reader. ] (]) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
			:::Can you please try and be polite instead of saying "rubbish" all the time. I don't take kindly to your accusation, I am the only person who has access to this IP and I do not have an account...that is my right and that is my choice. My history is clear and I have been accused and blocked before and appologised to for being wrongly blocked, so please do not peruse that route again. I have a good record, I mainly format, if you want to help help, I only do formatting really, I am getting the formatting consistent, I will not be trawling through websites to add results, I format and maybe add text, if you want to help adding the results would be a good thing you can do instead of persistently undoing my hard work. Like I say no one else seems to bother formatting at my level so I would appreciate it if you showed a little mutual respect, instead of "rubbishing" and reverting my edits, be helpful to wikipedia, not a vandal. ] (]) 11:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:33, 11 May 2013

Lincolnshire Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox

There is no justification for removing this info box. I am slowly upgrading all the CC elections pages so that they are all consistent. However Sport and politics seems to be trying to make this difficult by undoing my edits, they have threatened to have me blocked when all I am doing is upgrading articles, I intend to add more information to these articles (and source it properly of course) so that all CC election articles are consistent. I am starting from the top of the pages and that happens to be info boxes. I notice that some articles have info boxes and others dont, it makes sense to add information, not remove it, this would be consistent with other articles. I would suggest that if any editors are to be blocked it should be those who are vandelising articles by removing information. All I am trying to do is make these articles consistent and another editor is making that very difficult. I from time to time come on wiki to do formatting as no one else seems to bother to do it properly and indeed some intend to remove information...so it seems. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not the editor that created this info box, this was added way before I even looked at the article, you are therefore acting against consensus by removing it. Can you try and be constructive, instead of removing material 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Not "acting against consensus" if the other editor as you claim wants to contribute they can silence though from previous editors does not confer support for your position just because you are doing the same thing as them.Llogging out and editing as an IP is a common tactic to appear as an additional editor to garner support or try and demonstrate support for a position. I am not say that is what is happening here but that must be known. Slowly upgrading is also not acheived by cluttering up the ppages and duplicating information and adding confusing images such as pie charts or separating out "independents" The best way to upgrade these articles is to add the ward by ward results and canidate percentages and change from previous election not adding duplication of information which is at best clutter and at worse confusing to the reader. Sport and politics (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please try and be polite instead of saying "rubbish" all the time. I don't take kindly to your accusation, I am the only person who has access to this IP and I do not have an account...that is my right and that is my choice. My history is clear and I have been accused and blocked before and appologised to for being wrongly blocked, so please do not peruse that route again. I have a good record, I mainly format, if you want to help help, I only do formatting really, I am getting the formatting consistent, I will not be trawling through websites to add results, I format and maybe add text, if you want to help adding the results would be a good thing you can do instead of persistently undoing my hard work. Like I say no one else seems to bother formatting at my level so I would appreciate it if you showed a little mutual respect, instead of "rubbishing" and reverting my edits, be helpful to wikipedia, not a vandal. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories: