User talk:86.164.90.95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Louise-Élisabeth de Bourbon-Condé. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Time3000 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] Reverts

In response to your comment on my talk page: As of May 22, 2008 we had a truce, which you are breaking & disregarding without further word. I told you that, as part of our truce, I would note on the talk pages any issues of an unprecedented kind before reverting; if I have reverted any such without prior notification, I was wrong, I apologise, and will try to be more careful. But I also clearly stated at length what the exact objections are to those of your edits I reverted, and am doing so again here for the record, although they generally fall under the category of "conciseness": redundancy (material is already elsewhere in the article); trivia (such as, "She married the duc d'Orléans. She then became known as the duchesse d'Orléans"); refusal to follow Wiki conventions (e.g. citations must include the page # or url so that they can be verified; relatives should be listed under their parents and linked to only once; lists of relatives, titles, properties, successions, etc should be eliminated or minimised -- particularly in articles on historically minor individuals; articles shouldn't be padded with extra spaces/indentations between sections & sentences, thereby concealing the ratio of trivial lists/boxes/photos to significant biographical data; attributions of thoughts, feelings, motivations to historical individuals without verifiable citations from that person's memoirs or correspondence, etc both injure Wiki's authoritativeness & diminish its encyclopedic tone -- Wikipedia is not a collection of novelettes). So you do know what the objections are and, unlike Frania, I lack the time or patience to correct material you knew was objectionable when you inserted it. If you prefer to continue such insertions, that is your choice; I would much prefer that we discuss appropriate information to be included on the talk page (much of what you add is proper and worthwhile -- when you source it) -- and then you stick to it, and I won't revert. Otherwise, it's easier to revert than to write, so you're burdening yourself more than me -- still, it's an unfortunate waste of both our times. But have it your way. FactStraight (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)