User talk:Keeper of Albion

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Bullying

Don't bully me for my article edits Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on crying ‘bully’ and ‘harassment’ every time your unhelpful and sensationalised edits are reverted, as you did on the talk page of @Nil Einne, then you seriously need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and customs before continuing to edit. Here are some good places to start:

WP:DR

WP:DE

WP:SEALION Asperthrow (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Just Stop Oil

This was unnecessary, especially on an already-closed edit request. I would consider it biting newcomers, and would advise you to be more thoughtful in the future. Thanks. Wracking ^talk! 20:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither an unreasonable response nor one of malicious intent; any tactlessness was perceived by you. Asperthrow (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it as having been meant by a light-hearted joke that was misunderstood by to whom it was directed. In which case a simple, "Oh I'm sorry, I was making a joke," would have gone a long way toward helping that new editor not feel so defensive. Xan747 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello i'm was checking your and i Notice that Your don't like Bullying and i would to Talk to you About something and Probably be friends BatmanFan1989 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letby article

All serial killer articles give that level of explanation in the opening sentence of the crimes in order to comply with MOS:FIRST. If you feel there is "repetition" then it's text after the first sentence that needs to corrected (although I don't think it's the case). Please take it to Talk rather than reverting. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.”

”everything notable about the subject” would be her serial killing spree. You’ve undermined your own argument.

I fail to see what grounds there are for you to keep your own edit in, which you came along and made and then demanded another editor go to the talk page rather than revert it. Is your version of the lede more worthy than the previous? Does it have special protections? The proper course of action is to revert your edit and then take it to the talk page. Your new edit was in dispute and was reverted. That’s how it goes. Asperthrow (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll open a thread on the article talk page and see what others think. but the stumpy opening sentence is contrary to normal standards here. DeCausa (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of which I am fine to partake. For now, your disputed edit must remain out. Asperthrow (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change now has a consensus; initially it did not. The onus was on you to justify inclusion, not on anyone else to justify exclusion. Asperthrow (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Weinstein change

Hey there. In anticipation of exactly the reversion you made, I had already posted on the talk page of the Harvey Weinstein article. Whichever way you word it, it's ambiguous, since it now sounds like he's producing former films. Granted, that makes no sense, but it's grammatically incorrect and still technically ambiguous. It would probably work better to say that he's "a former producer of American films" or some similar wording, which is both grammatically correct and unambiguous. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]