User talk:Longwayround/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with Longwayround. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 - ... (up to 100)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing.

If you are talking about the third opinion, so why you have edited the article without any consensus of us ! And you have deleted those,purged buildings and the buildings whose ranking was incorrect without building any consensus. You just came and put your useless edits without discussing any thing.

Now you should refrain from editing the article until any consensus builts, and i will also try to build the consensus.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have also reverted 3 edits so be careful.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are not reliable than please go ahead to all the articles related to skyscrapers on Wikipedia, and mark them as unreliable and challenge the reliability of them !!!

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about Emporis, but i am talking about CTBUH ! Would you please give me any third party source that CTBUH is not reliable ?

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page is meant for what ? I think it is meant for discussion.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the result of the 3RR case?

Please clarify how this edit is acceptable given my ban on either of you reverting the article. Your edit removes 149 bytes from the article, so I'm assuming it is a revert. Please explain either (a) how you got consensus for this change, or (b) why it is not a revert. If you guys will not behave in a grown-up fashion, blocks or full protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. You will note that I have simply corrected the grammar of the relevant paragraph, flagged the facts which are under discussion (I am trying to build consensus) and moved a references. If that is seen to be a revert then I apologise unreservedly. Longwayround (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid removal of all warnings and discussion from your talk page does not suggest much interest in negotiation. Do you intend to consult anyone besides yourself? Do you plan to notify a WikiProject? Or request a WP:Third opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed seeking a Third opinion on 9 December Talk:List_of_tallest_residential_buildings_in_the_world#Third_opinion. I have been negotiating on the talk page since 1 December [1] and moved the warning to the /Mea_culpa page to show that I had read it and that I accepted it. Would you like me to revert this edit ? Longwayround (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I sought the Third opinion yesterday [2]. I do not doubt that I should have done so before getting involved in the edit war. Also, the reason for moving comments from Nabil rais 2008 from the talk page was (as I stated on his talk page [3]) that we were more likely to get consensus and a third opinion by discussing the matter at Talk:List of tallest residential buildings in the world Longwayround (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for requesting a third opinion. If an issue is important enough to debate at WP:AN3, it is probably important enough for you to keep related discussion visible on your own talk page until the issue has been resolved. Oftentimes things end up at AN3 because the involved editors refuse to have a real discussion. If you hide all posts immediately on your own talk page, it suggests you don't actually want a discussion. Since you both have some knowledge, it is puzzling why you are disagreeing so sharply. It may be that one of you is being very unreasonable but we can't tell so far. A full-length discussion in which both of you explained your positions would be educational. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hadn't thought the discussion on here was helpful at all but it's in the archives and I shall be moving this discussion (eventually, once it's fizzled out) to Mea Culpa as a salutary lesson. I, too, am puzzled about the disagreement. I suspect part of it may be cultural or linguistic as some of Nabil rais 2008's edits suggest that English is not his first language. I don't think he's unreasonable and I certainly hope I'm not! Longwayround (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue on David Coulthard

I believe you have made a serious mistake in flagging up a copyright issue on David Coulthard. As has been pointed out by me and another user on the WP F1 talk page, it is looking very likely that the page you claimed the article copied from did in fact copy the text from Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with the procedure, but it would be safe to suggest that there is no copyright violation issue with the article. QueenCake (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Longwayround/Tooty's Wedding has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tooty's Wedding, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Tooty's Wedding, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Friars Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Longwayround (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]