Talk:Fort Point National Historic Site

[Untitled]

The fort tells the story of its years spent guarding the Golden Gate. - Wow! Where is the fort's mouth?

The text of this article appears to have come from the Park Service brochure. Perhaps having first stopped at this website: http://www.pashnit.com/roads/cal/FortPoint.htm

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of spamming

the primary issue is not the spam, it is that the document relates to the wider topic You have already conceded elsewhere that this is not spam, @Beetstra:, so why are you resuming this assertion here? Qwirkle (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not an argument for inclusion, nor does it address why it has been removed multiple times now. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly addresses why it has been removed, it was mistakenly labled as bookspam, by you. In the course of a drawn-out thread elsewhere, @Beetstra: acknowledged that it was not, and yet here he is, later, raising this false claim again. The only other possible explanation is that he doesn’t know the implications of using the definite article in English. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:, you altered the meaning of someone else’s post with your last edit; I’ve reverted it for that reason. if you wish to raise a different point than this, then open another section. Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TALK: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate

Can I assume your removal of my comment was an error? --Ronz (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are raising an irrelevancy. Your edit changed the meaning of someone elses words, and used that change to misrepresent the point raised...or, perhaps it allowed you to misunderstand what point was being raised. If this isn’ about something, then don’t claim it is. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You ignored my question. Could you please answer it? --Ronz (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That a subset of edits by someone is called spamming is something else than an accusation that someone is a spammer. 'Spamming' is a term used for 'massive cross posting' ... Now, whether or not it was spamming does not matter, the point is that the link is inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

First, no, your first sentence is not true in all contexts. Next, most people define “massive” as something more than “five”. Next, there is no “cross posting”, even in a metaphorical sense, involved, the cites were relevant. Finally, outside of kindergarten, repetion does not equal Big-T TRVTH. You find them inappropriate, perhaps, but you’ve tried several reasons why that must be so. Why? Qwirkle (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It is on more than 5, only the 'mass addition' is 5. No, what is it if 4 to 5 people tell you that the links are not needed ... I am consistent, not repeating. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As before and elsewhere, you seem to have based your removal on an inaccurate claim. The subject is covered in its own section, and even listed in the table of contents. Perhaps you would consider self-reverting? Qwirkle (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, tell me, what is my inaccurate claim? I know the subject is covered in its own section, and that it is listed in the table of contents. So I think you do not understand my claim: '.. the document relates to the wider topic'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)