From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|
The WP:OWN is applicable to “both of us” (not that I thought it myself but clearly looking on our edit summaries again, personal justification without others’ input could be seen). And I think for ”both of us” it would be better if OTHERS took this issue to their mindset. No3RR etc.? Wiki. Teahouse comes to mind. I intend no warring to be actioned. [[User:Kieronoldham|Kieronoldham]] ([[User talk:Kieronoldham|talk]]) 04:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC) |
The WP:OWN is applicable to “both of us” (not that I thought it myself but clearly looking on our edit summaries again, personal justification without others’ input could be seen). And I think for ”both of us” it would be better if OTHERS took this issue to their mindset. No3RR etc.? Wiki. Teahouse comes to mind. I intend no warring to be actioned. [[User:Kieronoldham|Kieronoldham]] ([[User talk:Kieronoldham|talk]]) 04:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
:Thanks for the message. The reason ownership occurred to me is because you have done a lot of work on the article for a long time, to your credit. But you seem to have knee jerk reverted some pretty minor changes without maybe realising how they read to others. {{ping|John}} could be useful here. [[User:Hippo43|// Hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43#top|talk]]) 05:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC) |
:Thanks for the message. The reason ownership occurred to me is because you have done a lot of work on the article for a long time, to your credit. But you seem to have knee jerk reverted some pretty minor changes without maybe realising how they read to others. {{ping|John}} could be useful here. [[User:Hippo43|// Hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43#top|talk]]) 05:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
::I’d be happy to act as a third opinion. Both of you are good editors with a lot of passion for the subject. It should be possible to compromise on these minor matters of wording and style. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 14:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:18, 2 November 2025
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is After Dark (tv programme). Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brendan Rodgers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wtf are you talking about? // Hippo43 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Brendan Rodgers, you may be blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 22:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Again, wtf are you talking about? // Hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The WP:OWN is applicable to “both of us” (not that I thought it myself but clearly looking on our edit summaries again, personal justification without others’ input could be seen). And I think for both of us it would be better if OTHERS took this issue to their mindset. No3RR etc.? Wiki. Teahouse comes to mind. I intend no warring to be actioned. Kieronoldham (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. The reason ownership occurred to me is because you have done a lot of work on the article for a long time, to your credit. But you seem to have knee jerk reverted some pretty minor changes without maybe realising how they read to others. @John: could be useful here. // Hippo43 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- I’d be happy to act as a third opinion. Both of you are good editors with a lot of passion for the subject. It should be possible to compromise on these minor matters of wording and style. John (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
