User talk:Wtshymanski: Difference between revisions
Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) old business |
→Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski: new section |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]] and [[WP:NCPEER]], it is common practice to use official styling in the infoboxes for nobility and peers. --[[User:TaerkastUA|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Tærkast'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TaerkastUA|'''Discuss''']]) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
Per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]] and [[WP:NCPEER]], it is common practice to use official styling in the infoboxes for nobility and peers. --[[User:TaerkastUA|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Tærkast'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TaerkastUA|'''Discuss''']]) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Combine the Wikipedia manual of style and a peerage system and you're bound to get absurdities. Surelyl WP:COMMONNAME trumps? It's not as if Bennett inherited the title or passed it on and he only held his "peerage" for a couple of years. Finally, given the reputation of Canadians who acquired peerages, surely if someone was collecting viscounts they'd be as well served with a redirect to R.B. Bennett? --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]]) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Combine the Wikipedia manual of style and a peerage system and you're bound to get absurdities. Surelyl WP:COMMONNAME trumps? It's not as if Bennett inherited the title or passed it on and he only held his "peerage" for a couple of years. Finally, given the reputation of Canadians who acquired peerages, surely if someone was collecting viscounts they'd be as well served with a redirect to R.B. Bennett? --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]]) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski]] == |
|||
Could we just stop for a moment and have a serious conversation? No sarcasm, no blanking your userpage as soon as you see that I tried to reason with you, just a calm, rational discussion. Why don't you try discussion just once to see if it works? |
|||
How many people have to tell you before you admit that you have a problem? Is deleting material that should be [[WP:PRESERVE|preserved]] and being [[WP:CIVIL|rude and sarcastic]] really that important to you? Do you really want your legacy to be "pissed off a bunch of people, got banned from editing Wikipedia for life, watched as his former victims crawled through his edit history undeleting everything he deleted"? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:45, 15 May 2012
This page has been blanked. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ..again.
Peerages
Per MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:NCPEER, it is common practice to use official styling in the infoboxes for nobility and peers. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Combine the Wikipedia manual of style and a peerage system and you're bound to get absurdities. Surelyl WP:COMMONNAME trumps? It's not as if Bennett inherited the title or passed it on and he only held his "peerage" for a couple of years. Finally, given the reputation of Canadians who acquired peerages, surely if someone was collecting viscounts they'd be as well served with a redirect to R.B. Bennett? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Could we just stop for a moment and have a serious conversation? No sarcasm, no blanking your userpage as soon as you see that I tried to reason with you, just a calm, rational discussion. Why don't you try discussion just once to see if it works?
How many people have to tell you before you admit that you have a problem? Is deleting material that should be preserved and being rude and sarcastic really that important to you? Do you really want your legacy to be "pissed off a bunch of people, got banned from editing Wikipedia for life, watched as his former victims crawled through his edit history undeleting everything he deleted"? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)