User talk:Crispness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Excellent work on Surrey pages SuzanneKn (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request

I would like to improve User:Tb/British Isles in the hopes that it could become--perhaps with major changes!--a suitable position upon which everyone could stand. Would you take a look and let me know what you think? Tb (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC's don't formally end. They peter out when everything that could be said has been said. Then, if there is a consensus or the dispute is still ongoing, the arbitration process can be invoked. The reason for my proposal is in fact to attempt an end-run around this: to figure out if the underlying question can be addressed satisfactorily, which would make the RfC moot. If we can agree on what the right procedure is, separate from personalities or past whatevers, and if people can agree to that procedure, then I'm entirely happy and the RfC would be pointless. Tb (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A further idea. I'm not opposed to suspending the RfC while an attempt is made to work on a consensus, provided also there is a moratorium on altering "British Isles" terminology while it's sorted out, and provided User:Bardcom participates in the process of working on a consensus. Tb (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A non-starter, why? Tb (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I mean a "WP-wide" moratorium. I'm not sure what I mean. I'm hoping to find middle ground here. What is the difference between closing and suspending an RfC, anyhow? I'm not particularly concerned with procedural terminology, so I'm not sure I understand what the difference is which seems important to you there. My concern is that User:Bardcom would be unwilling to participate in any process toward finding a workable policy. Tb (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and my other concern. I'm concerned also that you or others might have read it, and have already decided, "no, that's fundamentally wrong and I'll never agree to anything like that," in which case, I'd rather you just said so. It seems like a little mutual buy-in would be nice. I'm trying to extend an olive branch. Tb (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you won't say whether you think it could be a start or not, period? Tb (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help; I see the reasons for your disagreement with a moratorium or the like. I've put a proposal on the RfC page; if you'll endorse that I think it would help a lot. Tb (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure

I think in fairness User:Secisek should also be requested to sign the closure. I'm sure he will. Tb (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. -> Saint

Just trying to clarify what St. meansGnevin (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Move then back if you wish , i've no problem with that infact your correct and moved that was in a page moving mood correcting GAA clubs with a / in the title Gnevin (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobitism

Hello Crispness. I've undone your recent edit at the Jacobitism article becuase the subject of your edit is currently being debated on the Talk page. Maybe you could contribute to this debate? Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was going on at the talk page of User Bardcom. Apologies for the confusion. Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please have a look at the relevant policy regarding what consitutes a minor edit. You mark all your edits as minor when in fact most of them aren't. Thank you. 81.5.133.89 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain and Ireland

I too, feel it's better to show Republic of Ireland; less confusing for readers. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Crispness, if you think Great Britain and Ireland is a dab page then I invite you to put the disambiguation symbol on the page. Otherwise, don't claim it to be a dab page and revert your recent edit. You'll have noticed the page has been stable for many hours now (!) Your recent action is likely to kick off an edit war yet again. CarterBar (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also note that you have now reverted this article to your preferred "dab" version four three times in less than a day. Please don't keep reverting. There is a discussion about the matter on the Talk page. Please add your point-of-view there. CarterBar (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Crispness. Please go to the talk page of that article to further elaborate on your reason for wishing British Isles not be wiki-linked. At least do so, to avoid an edit war. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that the page has become a 're-direct', I suppose it's a mute point. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

A review of your recent edits show that you, like Bardcom, have taken to the systematic removal of the term British Isles. I invite you to stop these removals. Most of them are not justified. Your recent removal of British Isles from Wheel arrangement is factually wrong (see Whyte notation) and it is clear from this that your primary motive is the removal of BI. This is evident by your comment about "no steam in Ireland". Such a comment demonstrates that you removed BI without first researching the facts. I also note on your talk page a request to not mark edits as minor. Despite this you continue to mark every edit as minor. Most of your edits a definitely not minor, so please only use this tag when it really is a minor change. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worthing map

As you understand longitude and latitude I would be grateful if you could take a look at Worthing, which has strayed into Hampshire on the location map.--Charles (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)