User talk:PaterMcFly: Difference between revisions
PaterMcFly (talk | contribs) →Kumiki Gibson: There's the opponent again. |
m →Kumiki Gibson: fix |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:Ok, thanks for the support. This is getting anoying. --[[User:PaterMcFly|PaterMcFly]] ([[User talk:PaterMcFly#top|talk]]) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
:Ok, thanks for the support. This is getting anoying. --[[User:PaterMcFly|PaterMcFly]] ([[User talk:PaterMcFly#top|talk]]) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Note: [[User:69.86.161.159]], obviously the "opponent" of [[User:Truthful data]] has once again stuck the article. I've reverted once again (his version is very biased in the other direction) and leave a warning on the talk page that the next such edit will have consequences. --[[User:PaterMcFly|PaterMcFly]] ([[User talk:PaterMcFly#top|talk]]) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
::Note: [[User:69.86.161.159]], obviously the "opponent" of [[User:Truthful data]] has once again stuck the article. I've reverted once again (his version is very biased in the other direction) and leave a warning on the talk page that the next such edit will have consequences. --[[User:PaterMcFly|PaterMcFly]] ([[User talk:PaterMcFly#top|talk]]) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
''I suppose that's it now. While I was away, [[User:69.86.161.159]], obviously the "opponent" of [[User:Truthful data]] (see history of article), reverted to "his" very biased version. While I was writting a warning to that user and one on the talk page, truthful data reverted back to his (in the opposite direction biased) version again. Either full protect the article (probably in my version, since, if I'm not completelly wrong, that's the least biased - although in general I would not ask a protection on a specific version, but this seems to be a special case) or block both parties for an extended period of time. --[[User:PaterMcFly|PaterMcFly]] ([[User talk:PaterMcFly|talk]]) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)'' |
|||
:Reverted and protected your version, not because I endorse it, but because it seems to be the one with the least BLP concerns. I'm going to engage another admin who is more experienced in these things to take a look and see if I've acted appropriately. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font><font color="grey">cidic</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:56, 7 July 2008
Welcome
Hi PaterMcFly, I could barely resist spelling your name Pater Mc Fly, but I accept your authority to write your own names however you want.
I think we should allow St.Gallen to do so, too.
Check the primary resource http://www.stadt.sg.ch
It is the official website of the city. I hope you concur that proper names are not subject of discussion.
In this sense I reverted your AGF edit. Thanks Tang Wenlong (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know this website, thanks. They use the form without space, but unfortunatelly, I don't think this can go as primary source in this case. Most newspapers use both spellings, and Duden also suggests to use a space, therefore, as I said: Both are common and can be used interchangeably. It may be a personal preference, but I think the form with space looks more up-to-date nowadays. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - you're nowhere close to the limit. Let me know if he does it again. –xenocidic (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the support. This is getting anoying. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User:69.86.161.159, obviously the "opponent" of User:Truthful data has once again stuck the article. I've reverted once again (his version is very biased in the other direction) and leave a warning on the talk page that the next such edit will have consequences. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's it now. While I was away, User:69.86.161.159, obviously the "opponent" of User:Truthful data (see history of article), reverted to "his" very biased version. While I was writting a warning to that user and one on the talk page, truthful data reverted back to his (in the opposite direction biased) version again. Either full protect the article (probably in my version, since, if I'm not completelly wrong, that's the least biased - although in general I would not ask a protection on a specific version, but this seems to be a special case) or block both parties for an extended period of time. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reverted and protected your version, not because I endorse it, but because it seems to be the one with the least BLP concerns. I'm going to engage another admin who is more experienced in these things to take a look and see if I've acted appropriately. –xenocidic (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)