User talk:BritishWatcher

Archives

1

Hey

I need your suggestions and guidance on the changes we are proposing on India. How should we move forward?

Thanks,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my latest response with slightly different wording to the last sentence? The overall size of the history section itself does play a big part in if others feel it should be mentioned or not, the section certainly needs expanding either way so adding more bits to that over the next few days as we wait for more comments will help. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did and I made those changes. I also responded on the talk page as well... see right beneath your comment, with the {{od}}. You are the only real help I'm getting so far. I the archives show you've always helped, so... :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive left another comment underneath that one. Still have concerns about final sentence. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot at first by the way, the canvassing to the Irish Republican wikiproject by Zuggernaut was very problematic. Your attempts to add to the article in a neutral way are helpful and will certainly improve the history section which is so very short at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nah... it was my fault actually... i did not understand what was going on until much later... It was too complicated for me... :P

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Zuggernaut case

You misunderstand what people are saying there. They are saying that per WP:CANVASS you should have discussed with Zuggernaut first, NOT per WP:ANI. On WP:CANVASS it says to contact the other users talk page first. I suggest you apologize for the misunderstanding, so everyone can try and go home happy :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"They" is mainly Highking, whos refuses to accept that what has taken place is canvassing and against the rules. The canvass page mentions the best way is to raise it with them and if they continue go to admins noticeboard, it does not say you must from what i can see. Highking is talking about the box that appears at the top of the admins noticeboard where it states you must notify the user, it also asks people to discuss on the peoples talkpage prior to posting and this is the first time ive been told that it is a strict rule, the only rule i knew about was that you must inform the users mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the box on the ANI page, all it means is alerting. Whether you must or not can be seen as irrelevant, there is an argument you should have. It'd be nice if you could just acknowledge that, and clarify your reasons for moving to ANI. I think right now others (like I did) are getting confused between your arguments about the CANVASS advice on talk page discussion and the ANI box. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason i raised it there was because i knew raising it with him myself would solve nothing, i wanted neutral editors to tell him what he did was wrong so he would accept it, the fact he does not accept what he did was wrong despite other editors saying it shows this would have been the case and he said there i was trying to stall him. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Just remember to make that clear to others in ANI! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at British Isles

BW, RA introduced the sentence here, and I reverted as per BRD. He then reverted my revert here, but I believe this was inadvertent. There is no consensus for his addition - it was not discussed beforehand, and people on the Talk page agree that the sentence is largely unintelligible. My understanding is that this article is under 1RR (no revert of a revert) - therefore both you and RA have breached this rule on this sentence. Please self revert. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ive reverted, this revert of a revert thing is crazy. 1RR should apply to ones own actions, not others. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment

I have no problem with your !vote to keep the article (List of largest empires), but I find your implication that I (as the nominator) am not working to improve the encyclopedia. I sincerely believe that the existence of that article is bad for the encyclopedia, and that deleting improves the overall quality of the encyclopedia. This is the article level equivalent of removing non-encyclopedic content from individual articles. Some, like myself, believe that our goal is not, nor should it be, to list every possible piece of information in every possible organizational format. You, presumably, differ in your fundamental attitude to the encyclopedia; fine, no problem there. Please don't disparage the contributions of others, though, simply because they differ from what you prefer to do here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that, all i saw was that it was the 5th nomination and i believe time would be better spent improving the article. If there are original research concerns at the moment, the criteria for inclusion should be strengthened. It was nothing personal, just after so many deletion attempts i dont see the need for more. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ignored your good advice

and changed it back.

I changed it to your good suggestion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&action=historysubmit&diff=384891597&oldid=384877042

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]