Talk:Mud March (suffragists)

Notes

Why have the footnotes been removed? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting

SchrCat, please respect BRD. You're edit-warring to remove text and sources that have been in the article for months. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

They are superfluous to understanding the background to the Mud March. All interesting stuff in the grand scheme of things, but not to this specific topic. Just because something has been in the article only for months does not make it sacrosanct. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's superfluous. I disagree, and clearly other editors do too because you've removed more than just the text I added. We need to understand something about the relationship between the groups. You've removed it three times in one hour: 20:44, 6 June, 21:32, 6 June, 21:45, 6 June. Please revert yourself. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The relationship is already clear enough for this article. We refer to the overlap in membership and to the cordial relationship between the two organisations: that is what is needed for people to understand the background to the Mud March. No-one needs to know about the relative stances on party politics and the class issue: it is immaterial in its impact on the march.

I am aware of the edits this evening: you have reverted twice, as have I. I do not know why you needed to refer to actions I know I have taken? - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you're not allowing anyone else to edit the article, not even to add a reference, and you've had the {{Under construction}} on it since 6 June (twice removed by different editors, twice restored by you). What's going on? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, I'd appreciate a reply. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sarah, Please don't chase me for an answer after less than 45 minutes if I've not been online: I do have a life off-wiki.

Please assume good faith. Of course I'm allowing other people to edit the article, but you made two edits that were not an improvement, as my edit summary made clear. That explains exactly why each of your two edits were reverted, but should you wish for clarification, please outline which part of the explanation was unclear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)- SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You've reverted every edit I've made since 6 June, including edits that restored material you were removing. Also, the under-construction tag isn't needed. The page isn't being built or rebuilt. This is all ordinary editing. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's being edited, including some rebuilding to come shortly. There really is no need to remove this - is there any particular rush to get rid of it? - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Colons

SchroCat, of all the difficulties here, the colons are the least important but the easiest to resolve, so I'll start there. You've been removing them before quotations here and at other articles I've edited, leaving no punctuation, saying it's British English. For example, at Women's Sunday, you removed the colon after Standard:

According to The Standard "From first to last it was a great meeting, daringly conceived, splendidly stage-managed, and successfully carried out. Hyde Park has probably never seen a greater crowd of people."

But punctuation is needed there, and a colon is fine in British English. Colons are used (for example) before quotations of more than one sentence or for emphasis. See New Hart's Rules, p. 162, 9.2.2. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)