User talk:Gibnews: Difference between revisions
m Indentation |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:Regretably Vintagekits spends his time trying to remove articles about British people and promoting the view that the IRA and the terrorist entities spawned by them are legitimate military organisations. He has been rather rude to me in other places has been selectivly editing my comments on that page. His only interest in the topic is to attack something British. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
:Regretably Vintagekits spends his time trying to remove articles about British people and promoting the view that the IRA and the terrorist entities spawned by them are legitimate military organisations. He has been rather rude to me in other places has been selectivly editing my comments on that page. His only interest in the topic is to attack something British. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Indentation == |
|||
If someone writes a message on a talk page: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
Some initial post. UserA 21:00 |
|||
:Then someone replies like this. UserB 21:05 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
but you interrupt, so it reads like this: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
Some initial post. UserA 21:00 |
|||
:Then you reply like this. Gibnews 21:10 |
|||
:Then someone replies like this. UserB 21:05 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
you are changing the flow of the conversation. You should either post AFTER the last poster, or indent so it is obvious that you posted after them, like this: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
Some initial post. UserA 21:00 |
|||
::Then you reply like this. Gibnews 21:10 |
|||
:Then someone replies like this. UserB 21:05 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
You are just being petty when you revert my attempt to correct your indentation. You know full well I'm not changing the text of or "editing" your post. [[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick</span>]] 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:35, 27 April 2007
|
| Archives of this discussion page Please do not change content |
Feel free to comment here, after all it is free ...
Single words that cause problems
Please read my comments at Talk:Falkland Islands. I don't know what interactions you have had elsewhere with Vintagekits, but popping up with the word 'racism' was not a good thing. Any honest reaction to that would be hard to hold against them. I would hope you could simply say you regret those words, and that what matters on that talk page is whether Vintagekits can bring any new refs to the table. Apologizing, and then saying "the purpose of this talk page" is for things pertinent to the topic would be the correct order here.
I've tried to outline to Vintagekits how long-standing the issue is, and that review of prior discussion/archives, and the refs found previously, is necessary to know which 'new' refs they have found, or need to find. I've pointed out that at least one of their cited refs, you had brought up before. If the first thing you all had said was that (find something new), rather than 'lol', well, you would not have come off looking as bad as the end of that page looks right now.
It is quite right to ask someone proposing a change to do some work, find refs, outline new arguments. Ask for that, don't ask for them to go ...
Shenme 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regretably Vintagekits spends his time trying to remove articles about British people and promoting the view that the IRA and the terrorist entities spawned by them are legitimate military organisations. He has been rather rude to me in other places has been selectivly editing my comments on that page. His only interest in the topic is to attack something British. --Gibnews 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)