| Revision as of 10:13, 1 June 2008 editWotapalaver (talk | contribs)1,290 edits →Great Hunger← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:26, 1 June 2008 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →Great Hunger: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| ::Hi Daniel. Domer48 is reverting, butchering the lead again. ] (]) 10:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Hi Daniel. Domer48 is reverting, butchering the lead again. ] (]) 10:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to direct your attention to the recent edits on the Article. I have detailed my concerns and in the absence of any worthwhile response acted upon them. The recent changes has resulted in the deliberate re-insertion of factually . Because of our policy on Copy-Vio’s I have emailed you a copy of the page being quoted. --] (]) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Signpost'' updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.== | ==''Signpost'' updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.== | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 1 June 2008
width="270px" align="left" valign="top" style="border:solid #User:Daniel/Colour I 1px; font-size:95%; padding: 3pt;"|
|
Um?OK, I was in the midst of responding when you archived. With all do respect, I'm not critiquing, I actually agree with what you're saying. I was just trying to draw an analogy. RC-0722 /1 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Stabbing party?*gets his knives sharpened...* —Dark 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA.Yeah, I forwarded the e-mail to WJB. · AndonicO 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Great HungerIn light of this discussion, here, and based on the responses here and here, further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue here also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out here, this article is under an Arbcom Ruling here, with conditions outlined here under Principles and here under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of WP:LEAD. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including WP:OR, which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example:
Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to direct your attention to the recent edits on the Article. I have detailed my concerns here and in the absence of any worthwhile response acted upon them. The recent changes here has resulted in the deliberate re-insertion of factually incorrect information. Because of our policy on Copy-Vio’s I have emailed you a copy of the page being quoted. --Domer48 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC) IRCGet your ass there now! —Dark 05:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
