User talk:131.174.244.31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archaic spellings[edit]

There is no need to insert archaic and no longer in-use spellings unless there is current relevance of that spelling. Please discuss this on the talk pages to get consensus for their inclusion before adding more of these. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What you write about said spellings is untrue, Barek. All of those added by me to their respective articles are registered in the current on-line version of the Oxford English Dictionary and, although they may be rarely used, none of them is qualified in that same dictionary as archaic or obsolete.--131.174.244.31 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you believe they are appropriate additions, and now that the addition has been removed, per WP:BRD you should take the requested change to the individual article talk pages to get community input and to see if consensus supports adding them. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe, Barek, that your choice to revert the edits violates the principles of the WP:BRD. My edits were by no means bold, all of those hereto pertinent having consisted merely in the addition of alternative—hodiernally rare but still valid—spellings. Quite frankly, your decision to revert said edits in a summary fashion strikes me as authoritarian.--131.174.244.31 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Think what you like; the simple fact is you added changes, I reverted, and the next step is discussion on the article talk pages to try to reach consensus. Take it to the article talk pages. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
As you know, WP:BRD is not a policy but merely an essay. Since the decision to revert was yours, and yours alone, I would appreciate it if you were so courteous as to provide a justification for your reversals that is based on actual policies or common-sense. My edits were justified: the spellings are recognized as valid by what is, undisputably, a recognized lexicographical reference work.--131.174.244.31 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What we have is a content dispute; you have provided your reasons, and I have provided mine. The next step is to take it to the article talk pages, to get broader discussion and to reach community consensus. There is nothing further to be accomplished on this talk page, so I see no reason to reply further if all you wish to do is to attempt to evade this basic process of Wikipedia dispute resolution. If other editors do not get involved on the article talk pages, option such as WP:RFC can be utilized to attract input for article talk pages that normally receive little attention. If you have objections about my behaviour, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI, but be prepared to be told this is a content dispute to be discussed on the article talk pages and not a matter for ANI. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)