User talk:HJensen/Archives/2008/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Sarcasm
You really should put a lid on the sarcasm when posting to my discussion page. You'll be much more effective without it. Tennis expert (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't use sarcasm. I really mean that you should provide edit summaries—something you have failed to do massively recently. It is really basic behavior here on wikipedia. Also, you should stop deleting every marginally critical comment about your edits on your talk page. You would appear much more honest in that way. (This diff is the cause of TE's and my comments here.) --HJensen, talk 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you do. For example, "I know this message will only survive a few hours on your talk page where you always get the last word in any debate...." But if you'd rather substitute "incivil" for "sarcastic", I wouldn't object. Tennis expert (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Your quote above was a perfect anticipation of what you actually do. You delete everything that is critical towards you. That is a fact. Refering to facts is neither incivil or sarcastic. --HJensen, talk 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you do. For example, "I know this message will only survive a few hours on your talk page where you always get the last word in any debate...." But if you'd rather substitute "incivil" for "sarcastic", I wouldn't object. Tennis expert (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Because you actually are vandalizing
You are the only one deleting the GS tables. Moreover, you've special fun deleting only Rafa Nadal's tables, while not touching nor Federer nor any other tennist article. If you do want to delete those tables, get a consensus from everyone. While, the tables will stay on the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.197.15 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- a) You seem to have a peculiar understanding of vandalism.—please ead the first couple of paragraphs of the policy; b) You have not come up with a reason for include the information; c) consensus is not something you "get" "from everyone; d) aren't you blocked from editing? e) I do not have fun; f) What has Federer to do with this? --HJensen, talk 18:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Warning regarding unlinking of dates
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not only are you unlinking dates, but you are performing blind reverts of articles whose date format was previously corrected. See, e.g., your reversion of the Mats Wilander article. Tennis expert (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
"Massive scale"? You must clearly have mistaken me for another editor. I have neither the time nor the intentions of engaging in the absurdly extensive edit warring that you and others have been eganged in. And please don't call my edits for "blind"—I look through my reversions before I save. I urge you to read WP:CIVIL and other relevant policies, before you continue your post-retirement activities. --HJensen, talk 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits to the Mats Wilander article were called "blind" because they are exactly that. The dates in the article were in the correct day-month-year order used in Sweden; yet, in your zeal to delete the date links, you also put the dates in the incorrect month-day-year order. You really should be more careful. Tennis expert (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am always careful. As for "correctness" about a Swedish way of wriying dates in English; I would be more careful (it is usually optional). Btw you cannot define "blind" by referring to the thing you define. If you cannot understand that, well, as we agree on, draw your own conclusions. Oh, and you forgot to address your "massive" accusation. But never mind - it must be hard, even when retired, to keep track of all once's accuations. (And I see you have already deleted my entry on your talk page - thanks.)HJensen, talk 22:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)