User talk:Abtract

/archive 1 1 May - 31 October 2006
/archive 2 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007

If you talk to me on this page, I will reply here. Abtract 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Abtract! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukin i

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kuki ni 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite archiving my first year, I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. Abtract 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spades/SS

Hi there, I've noticed the rv of the SS -> spades that Dtrebbien had done. While it would have been better had he put it on our project talk page what he is doing rather than on his user page I think his idea is a very good one (Spelling selector)and even affects us bridge people. (honour/honor). Rather than messing up our stuff he is changing it to a (very reasonable) alternative first. I say we let him. Oh and while I disagree with your views on suitplay I have noticed it is forcing him to write a superior article... People having differing opinions is valuable - it keeps the world diverse. Just as long as people are nice to each other :-)Cambion 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it is a good idea but it doesn't have to use a template already in good use. I have persuaded him to use a different template and revert his edits so everyone should be happy. I think you will find I was very polite throughout the suitplay debate ... I still have severe reservations but let's see how it develops, I am having a break from it. Abtract 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good solution to me. As for the suit combinations debate I suppose we need more people's input. Being restrained is good. There's no use in "my point is valid 'cos you've got a big nose..." :-). We'll see how it develops. .. Cambion 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract, I have reversed everything back. For future reference, where do I discuss changes like the one I proposed? Dtrebbien 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might have started on the bridge project page or found a couple of users of the template or the talk page of a busy article that used the template ... anyway thanks for your very sensible decision. :) Abtract 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

In your edit summary here, you stated you were reinstating {{wikt}} because it "cannot possibly be a bad idea". It might not have been your intention, but when you make an edit summary like that, it comes across that you are not open for discussion. The implication is that you are right and that no one could "possibly" disagree with you, or that there is no other "possible" way of viewing the issue. In my view, this is not in the Wikipedia spirit of discussion and consensus-building. As I said, that may not at all have been your intention, but I thought I should mention that that is how it comes across, at least to me (who sometimes might read too much into things!). Looking forward to collaborating, --Paul Erik 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment ... I take your point. Abtract 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Abtract!

Wow...you have been doing a lot of great work since that welcome! A few quick comments...(a) I really appreciate you taking time to welcome newcomers as you just have. I do believe it can make a difference in our wikicommunity. (b) You have no need to credit me for the welcome template. It has developed over time under many people's edits and various versions of it are in use all over WP. Keep up the great work! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quotation mark, non-English usage

Thank you for your greeting, but it took a day for me to understad, how could I answer to you the same way in this Wikipedia... In fact, I am not that fan of creating wiki-pages, but I use Quotation mark, non-English usage page very often for my work, so I finally decided to set it up in order, because there was some rubbish (at least in the Russian section) and confusion there, and the data structure was snot that good at all.

I would appreciate if you could check out my writing in the Russian section, for I forgot my English since school, which was 16 years back :)

> I wonder if you might like to reconsider your recent edits on Quotation mark, > non-English usage which seem to belong more reasonably in Quotation mark glyphs.

There was most of that "glyphs" info on this page before me, I just decided to colect all the glyphs info from "non-English usage" into one place, in order to make other text more compact and easy-to use, and, after that, some text (about French and German features) was double-written in different places.

I removed the table and make a link to Quotation mark, glyphs instead (can't understand how to create a Contents section there) - in fact, Quotation mark, glyphs is TOO havy, I think most of the "specific" info is absolutely useless, and can be found in the Overview table - I just can not bring myself to remove all this, for I have made a lot of changes already, and I see some people is not that glad...

Sorry for this chaos, I am always in a hurry...

Best regards, D.Ignashoff 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)D.Ignashoff[reply]

Conversation to be continued here ... Abtract 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Abtract! Enjoy Wikipedia , your 83.191.160.95 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you too; have you considered getting an account? Abtract 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi. Just wondering why you have been removing wikilinked dates? Dates with month and day (and year if it's there) are wikilinked for date preferences, not because they are meaningful - as per WP:MOSDATE. Years linked by themselves, I agree, are completely meaningless. Regards, Severo^TC 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing them because IMHO they add nothing to the article and make it looked cluttered with links; WP:MOSDATE only tells us how to do it, there is no insistence that we do. Abtract 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge Admin

I would just like to apologise for having wasted your time on the Rouge Admin page through responding to my alcohol induced paranoid rant. I didnt realise

A) That what I was writing was such unutterable nonsense, apart from one or two innovative new additions or archaisms of the English language
B)I was awake when I wrote it, believing myself to be dreaming at the time.

Thank you for being so understanding, and I am very sorry for any trouble caused. All the best, Whiskey in the Jar 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about but ... no problem. :) Abtract 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd just like to thank you for this whole exchange. I'm still chuckling about that! --SGT Tex 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Talk:British Isles. using TW

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Talk:British Isles, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Waggers 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made my comments on the talk page. Abtract 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English usage

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

WP:ENGVAR is not vandalism. I have alerted an administrator about your use of false edit summaries and improper vandalism claims. Please read and understand Wikipedia policies before editng any further or you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. 142.167.77.38 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the to and fro on Genisis. English in England demands that bands are treated as singular. Pink Floyd are. Please do not warn the ip that they are vandalizing when they are in fact only reverting to a consensus version. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird comment ... I agree bands are to be treated as singular which means they take "is" not "are" so my edit is correct (you are saying). Abtract 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in the hurry to stop you continuing to revert, I meant plural obvisouly, please read WP:ENGVAR.--Alf ^melmac 13:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and did so when I saw it on the edit summary, but Genesis is an entity and therefore takes the plural not the singular ... see British Isles as an example. But either way, did you consider that the IP reverted the whole of my edit without attemting to change simply the singular/plural bits and without being specific about previous "consensus" (assuming from your comments that such exists). From your talk page, you are clearly a friend of "Libs" and you might consider whether this has clouded your judgement (made very hastily). Abtract 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis are an entity. Yes consensus does exist on articles written in UK English (and to older Brits like myself it sounds utterly wrong to use any other such as "Pink Floyd is" Black Sabbath was" etc. I can only say that you're both as bad as each other to keep reverting without talking to each other, no matter my alliance. I did not do any reverting myself, I did say I would, and would have done a different edit than libs, but no matter we can spend the rest of the day shooting off at each other or just get on with it.--Alf ^melmac 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is this consensus to be found? Have you looked at British Isles? Abtract 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles are special case as they are more often used in the political grouping and then we say The British Isles is, the consensus to use "foo are a English band" etc is in Category:English musical groups, from which you may take your pick but the featured article Pink Floyd, and the former featured articles The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are probably better examples of the usage.--Alf ^melmac 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a reasoned response. Thank you. Abtract 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis

What is with the Genesis page; it usually very quite, but all of a sudden all these ips turn up. Is somebody dead? Ceoil 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I stirred the pot a little. :) Abtract 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have a very old-school approach to commas. In general, our camp likes to use extra commas for reasons User:Tony1 can explain better than myself. — Deckill er 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it "old-school" but I just try to use punctuation to simplify, clarify and where possible to make the prose more elegant. I probably do use fairly "standard" punctuation but, since it is standard because it works, I guess that isn't a bad thing. I look forward to reading suggestions from Tony. Abtract 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who exactly is "our camp"? Abtract 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude. I like most of your edits, but confused by changing Genesis's to Genesis'. You mentioned the latter form was used on their website...could you let me know where? Also, Atlantic Records refer to Genesis's music, as do many other Wiki pages. The Wiki definition of Apostrophes also describes that non-plural names ending with S should take the "'s". This was an edit made some time ago, I don't see the need to revert back to the Genesis' form. Discuss here, let's not get into a revert battle :) MrMarmite 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure [1] Abtract 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's that's just a link to the site. Can you show an example of where they use the possessive of Genesis without the 's. The onus is on you to show this, as you changed the article. Many sources, such as Atlantic Records, Wiki's Apostrophe definition and many other Wiki sites show that Genesis (and Collins and Banks) should take the 's in the possessive. I await your link...otherwise I will be re-correcting it. If you wish object further, do not revert..start a discussion on the Genesis page about it. Thanks..MrMarmite 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usage is on that page. Abtract 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Please give other editors time to type into the Talk page before seemingly getting stroppy about them not doing so. Ta! Fingerpuppet 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you not "other editors" ... you reverted an anon's obviously constructive edit without any discussion. I consider this impolite and so does [Wikipedia]. This approach is not conducive to welcoming new editors and making them feel at home. I have no particular interest in the edit but I do defend his right to make it. Abtract 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that you were referring to myself. The edit was not constructive, as it added POV content, and was inaccurate and removed verifiability. I was in the process of adding to the talk page when your impolite comments regarding use of a talk page were added. Please in future allow other editors including myself chance to comply with your requests before placing such comments. Not everyone is as quick with use of a keyboard as you obviously are yourself, especially those of us with manual disabilities. Fingerpuppet 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your disabilty is not an excuse for being impolite ... [this] makes it quite clear that you should not revert a reasonable edit. You may not think it was constructive but it has all the hallmarks of an inexperienced editor trying to improve the article by putting in some of his local knowledge; yes I know that isn't quite how wp works but perhaps he doesn't - assume good faith unless you have proof to the contrary. Reverting should be used mainly to combat vandals, not to change what you don't like. Try explaining to the guy next time, or even try building on his edit. Anyway life's too short to worry ... go ahead and do whatever your conscience allows, I have made my point. Abtract 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godalming

I noticed that you were last at this page Godalming. Could you possibly look at it and determine why the text starts below the info bar. This is not normally the case as you can see from Lightwater. I can't seem to see what the problem is. Thanks SuzanneKn 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look but I am no expert. Abtract 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - English Bridge Union

Thank you for your edits on the EBU page. Much appreciated and I completely agree. It is now much improved on the original 2 lines of text and I am grateful for your assistance. Matt - London 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... but please be aware, I wasn't helping you I was helping to make wp better. I hope you now appreciate the way an edit should be made and, in particular, that edits should not consist of wholesale copies of other websites. :) Abtract 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind welcome

It was very nice of you to send me greetings, especially as that having looked at some of your comments and edits on the Celt page, I was very happy to see that sort of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just being friendly. Abtract 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK

Please see WP:Point. Your continued addition of de jure is disruptive. Jooler 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment but disruptive of what ... or to whom?Abtract 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive of the community's attempt to maintain the article. When consensus is against you, don't repeatedly revert the article to your way of thinking, or try to make a WP:POINT. Instead, please attempt to sway opinion on the talk page, and if you don't manage to, accept defeat graciously. Besides, you've now reverted three times in 24 hours. Do it again, and you'll end up getting blocked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance is not what wp is about ... I have no desire to be disruptive; I want better articles. So far no-one has even attempted to explain why de facto is good but de jure is bad.Abtract 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had, if you care to look. I have now repeated my statement. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that the first time but it doesn't answer the point ... see my comments on the talk page. Abtract 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not answer the point for you, but it was an attempt to explain, wasn't it? (" So far no-one has even attempted to explain ", you wrote) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for it ... at the time I saw it as an attempt to avoid addresing the point. Abtract 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead section

Please look at the top of the page where it says "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Jooler 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what gives you the authority to revert, as though it were vandalism, a good-faith edit made 8 days previously and objected to by none of the many editors who must be watching this page? Abtract 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to policy/guideline, you cannot just say no objection = consensus. Otherwise I could make up a policy, not advertise it anywhere, wait a few weeks, slap a {{policy}} on it and call it policy. From WP:POLICY: "Disputes over the wording of a guideline are resolved by considering and discussing objections and counter-proposals and coming to agreement, often using compromise language" Mr.Z-man 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract, please reconsider. Your current actions are only self-defeating; shooting yourself in the foot, won't help you get to where you're trying to get. GoodDay 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on United States. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Three reverts in 33 minutes. That's a very vigorous edit war.—DCGeist 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in gross violation of the Three revert rule at United States. You have been reported . --G2bambino 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Abby, why? I was hoping you would respect the consensus. GoodDay 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got carried away with an attack of common sense; I still find it interesting that others don't agree but hey thats life. Abtract 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC). Abtract 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're going to get blocked; I hope you won't 'continue' these actions, when that block expires. Remember Abby, Wikipedia is a community; one must work within it. GoodDay 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Howdy. I have blocked you from editing for a day for disruption on United States. Please limit your reverts and when the block expires, you are welcome to contribute constructively. I recommend using the articles talk page. To contest this block, you may use the {{unblock|your reason here}} template on this talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I expected it and I certainly won't contest it. I got a little carried away with my desire to see better articles and forgot that consensus is an important part of the wp way. Apologies. Abtract 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a short memory, considering that you were engaging in the same behaviour at the UK article a day before, and others were asking you to desist for the same reasons. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a bit mean ... kick a guy when he's down why don't you? So far as I'm concerned it is all one episode where I got more and more irritated that others could not see the "obvious" correctness of my approach - latin words, then opening phrases. Abtract 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, apology accepted; it takes a mighty big Wikipedian to stand forward and ask for forgiveness. GoodDay 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sui generis

You're going to lose that battle. I'd suggest avoiding another 3RR. (I'm no fan of the term, either, but this has been discussed in great length on the talk page, and I respect the consensus.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.Abtract 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, having said that, it appears I might be wrong. Still, I think taking it to the talk pages (as you did) was a good move. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ... another thanks. Abtract 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Megalithic Culture

Thanks Abstract; good balanced edit leaving several usages of British Isles in the text without hammering the point. (Sarah777 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

NP ... just trying to improve the article. Abtract 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

You reverted my valid edit to UK cities, Reading is not a city. What article are you referring to and where? If Reading is to remain than the section needs re-wording, it's mis-leading. RaseaC 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population which was previously List of United Kingdom cities by population ... I have changed the link and the heading of the section as you suggested. Thanks Abtract 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forage/Foraging

I reverted the article again. The point is that the article on Foraging theory does not even expain the behavior-- It is virtually incomprehensible. Neither article is terrific, but Forage at least explains what forage is. I will not violate 3RR by reverting it again, but I deliberately wanted to link to the forage defination article because it is at least written in plain English. I'd appreciate it if the link could stay, or if you must revert it again, would you also be so kind as to add an intro to Foraging that explains what it IS?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's no fall out over it ... maybe we could both work to improve the 2 forage articles? I will give it some thought. :) Abtract 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Sounds like a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland

Not sure if I am communicating but here goes - I do not do a lot of editing on wiki so I am at all sure of this format. I reversed your edit and added citation. The entire page needs some work - I understand that fitting so much in with little space is hard but sometimes the proper sequence of events has to be included to get the proper historical perspective. e.g. it was the Lambert Simnel event which more or less led to the Poynings Law action. This is lost if the date of Simnel is incorrect so it is not just a slight error. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Sorry mate but I have removed your latest attempt which remains uncited, but mainly because it is completely out of place where you put it. It doesn't belong in the lead and you included it a few centuries out. Abtract 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean uncited? The opening opinion all uncited if it comes to that. The opinion expressed needs some kind of modification. What do you mean I included it a few centuries out? [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

"Christianity has played a major role in Ireland's history, culture and internal conflict." This is opinion only - and it is misleading opinion at that. Christianity was USED as a tool of conflict but did not actually cause conflict. The plantations were the issue - not the religion of the planters. This is bad history to leave this hanging like this. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Do what you will; I have given my opinion I won't fight you on it ... but others will also rv you. Abtract 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out that piece of opinion but well if someone does rv that is fine. I won't pursue it either. I have given my opinion and for historical accuracy and clarity that is all I can do. The page could do with some attention as there are many outdated statements like the Silken Thomas bit - there is a lot more scholarship on him and his status has gone up in recent years owing to some very interesting research - but if it is all about arguments and challenges that I will not go down that path. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Megaliths, archive European Megalithic Culture talk

I assume you were trying to archive a talk page here, but you created a new article instead.P4k 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed ... three of them. Abtract 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Irish Famine

Discussion transferred to GIF talk page where it has more relevance. Abtract 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

.. to the WPSI project. Hopefully it is all self-explanatory, but if you'd like any assistance please let me know. Good wishes, and hope to meet you on a wiki-island soon. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets of Islam

I removed Adam from the category Category:Prophets in Islam because there is already an article called Islamic view of Adam, that is part of the category Category:Prophets in Islam--Java7837 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for telling me but I don't understand your rationale since adam was a prophet of islam. Abtract 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a suggestion from way back

Hi damian111 here sorry about the late reply, my userbox was inacurate and should have been west wales. For reference on this please read the dangerous book for boys. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian111 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at WikiProject Cornwall

Hi, usually I would agree with you about removing other editors' comments - but in this case I had asked Woody to remove it if he felt appropriate. I am in a difficult situation with another editor, and Woody is familiar with the dispute, and trying to help me and the other person resolve our problems. My post was related to the difficulty, so I am happy for Woody to have removed it. Good to know the page is noticed though! Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem although I would never give another editor permission to do that ... I would prefer to remove it myself but, hey, we are all different. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally, but am feeling rather stressed and didn't want to revert myself and then spoil it by leaving an intemperate edit summary! DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK mate ... I have a suggestion for you as one who has had problems on here before ... my suggestion is "Apologise and move on". I know you don't understand any of why you should apologise and frankly neither do I having only skimmed through your 'problem' but believe me it is best. I sense that you enjoy wikipedia and do not want to leave but you are talking yourself into a corner. Assume 'they' are trying to be helpful and genuinely do not understand your problem ... a quick "I am sorry, not quite sure what for but I want us all to work together to make this a great encyclopedia so I am going to move on and not pester you again on this misunderstanding" and then move on to another area of wp. It worked for me and it will work for you ... in time you will look back on this as the time when you matured as an editor. Whatever you decide, good luck. :) Abtract (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, probably quite good advice too, but when I read this[2] just after reading it I thought - "Why bother?". Hopefully he will ignore me from now on, I shall do my best to ignore him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm doesn't make good reading but my advice still stands ... swallow your pride, apologise and look good ... or fight on, look bad and lose. Your choice. Abtract (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snarky edit sumary

It's much more constructive and polite to actually take a look at talk page before making unfounded, already-discussed, and frankly rude comments in edit summaries, as you did on Ybor City. You're welcome to join the discussion... if you leave that attitude behind. Zeng8r (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I didn't realise you owned the article or that you were writing a book on the same subject after extensive research ... however you might bear in mind the rules about OR and NPOV before reacting to a simple edit so aggresively. Abtract (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wiped out most of the lead of an article for no reason and added an inflamatory edit summary for good measure. After you were informed that the article is already being discussed on its talk page and invited to join the conversation, you ignored the discussion and hacked away at the entire article, removing much important information in the process since you obviously know nothing about the topic.

Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Should I wikilink the relevant policies for you? Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink what you like mate, it won't change my view (and that of several other editors) that this is a badly written article containing many unsupported statements like "he thought ... " and "he said ... ", travelogue details about who went where and by which means of transport, many POV comments and, judging by the complete absence of citations, a great deal of OR (presumably by someone about to write a book on the subject). I have read all the talk page (as I do as a matter of routine before editing any article) and it is full of critisism, similar to mine, by several editors which you have reacted to with very lengthy and erudite responses but so far you have not taken heed of any view but your own. You are completely missing the point ... this is not your article and any "knowledge" you may have gleaned in preparation for your book is only relevant if you can give citations to other publications. It, like all articles, should be written in encyclopedic/measured tone ... keep your skill as an author for your book where you can get away with flowery phrases and colourful asides. Abtract (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ieuan

Hi Abtract, I notice you've tagged Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr as a possible hoax. If you're interested, I've left my views on the Discussion page. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your comments especially since you seem to have investigated the topic. Abtract (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ybor City

Thanks for your help / backup on he Ybor City article! I'm a n00b but appreciate the help nonetheless. BrickMcLargeHuge 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I simply played it how I saw it. Abtract 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwahahahaha!!!!

WP:ROUGE WP:CABAL WP:SPIDER!!!!! >Radiant< 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and of course you are right ... I can get up myself occasionally when I have nothing better to do. Thanks for taking the time to point it out and tidy up after me; feel free to do it again as you see the need. Having said that I am hopeful that the frequency of need will decline to a muted "No but ... " occasionally. :) Abtract 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penwith Wikiproject & Cornwall Wikiproject

Hi, I see you are a member of the Cornwall Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge the Penwith Wikiproject into it. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Rather obviously, you know about this already - I've just messaged everyone who is in either of the two projects so that hopefully we can generate som econsensus and movement. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... nice to see I was ahead of you. :) Abtract (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]