GordonUS

Henry Ford

So your response to my edits was a wholesale revert? So much for building consensus and showing any good faith. You've already had the topic of your edits discussed with you, and the opposition to them. You rewrite sections not to be more clear, but to say new things. Your stated intent for the movement of images, chronology, is revealed by your comment to me to instead be grandstanding showmanship, which is NOT a reason to edit. In sum, I find your attitude of wholesale revision insulting. I went through your two dozen edits and selectively adjusted a few, reverted a couple, and changed a few things to help work with you. You have now made clear that you are not interested in such. Duly noted. ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: your edits, my changes after, and the diff of all the above. Clearly, I did NOT wholesale revert you. You continue to not understand good writing, as evidenced by earlier discussion on this article, and in other talk sections. I'm not sure where in the world you're from, or where you learned English, but there are good and bad places for dependent clauses. I suggest you seriously invest the time in such handy, simple writing guides as Strunk & White, the MLA handbook, and any high school level Warriner's textbook. You seem to think the only way to write is your way. It's not.

Further, chronological association of images is not the only way. The image makes sense in the racing section, and should stay there. There's no rule stating all images should be chronological, and you have opposition from other editors, and haven't sufficiently justified the changes. Those seeking to change have the burden of explaining why the change is needed. ThuranX (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's good enough for Hosni Mubarak and the editor of the National review. google results. I suggest, again, that you learn a bit more about writing. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a style of writing and I meant to use the example of "fmr president Clinton." Sometimes it is necessary to put the title outside but in general the title is first. Secondly, the editor of the national review is not credible. You stated it as a "rule" so I expect to see it in an english writing book. A wikipedia article on writing will suffice or give me a writers handbook.

If this bothers you so much please get a third party for a dispute moderation.

GordonUS (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You want the change, you can seek DR. That's not my burden. You bring the change, you bring the rationale and you do the convincing. If the Editor of a major magazine isn't qualified to write, then there's no standard that will satisfy you. ThuranX (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only have i read the article thoroughly, I AM rsponding to what you say. You said this. I gave you examples. It is clear to me that you are not interested in discussing this, hence your ignoring of my responses, and my examples. As for 'Bill Clinton, President' or 'President Bill Clinton', a shortened title is different than a full clause. I get tired of people who can't debate on substance, and so wiggle and worm around. that's what you're doing, now that I've refuted you. Stop, move on, go on to other articles. I've shown you counter examples from a major magazine editor, who used a dependent clause just as I've reverted to. Further in that list, I see Arlington Cemetery and PBS, both of whom also probably have editors to make sure they're not publishing poor writing. I'm not going to continue this with you. This is essentially the same lack of familiarity with good writing as gwernol and I addressed a month ago, and it's clear you haven't tried to improve and learn in the interim. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You just wiggled around my questions. I explained to you I meant to use "fmr President Clinton" in my last response. You ignored it and used my mistake example to support your point. #2, you reverted my edit suggesting I broke a rule. Therefore, again, I want to see the rule in a writers handbook so I can read it. Giving me the writing of an editor is not going to change my opinion. If you want to change my opinion, please show me the specific rule in an english handbook or guide. Again, I conceded sometimes the title goes outside, other times it does not. You did not address this.

I will ask on the Ford page and will seek consensus.

GordonUS (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tancredo

Please stop by Talk:Tom Tancredo#Recent major changes to explain your editing. I notice you rarely use edit summaries, which makes it hard for other editors to follow what you're doing, or why. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but it doesn't explain your considerable editing to the article. Please explain your edits on the talk page. If there is no explanation, and no effort to seek consensus for them, I'll revert them back to before you started. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am explaining them now. Everything is copyediting. It's a bit hard to go back and explain. Do you have any specific questions? GordonUS (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is hard for you to explain what you did imagine how much harder it is for other editors to figure out. Please explain your edits, and seek consensus for them, or I'll revert them and we can start over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not hard for me to explain but it will be time consuming to explain each edit on the article's talk page. I will have to post a link to every edit.

If you can't figure out what I did isn't this reflective of minor changes? I don't see the reason for a revert. Its just copyediting. Why don't you look at the article version before I started editing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Tancredo&oldid=212994724

I am happy to answer any questions.

GordonUS (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

After three requests you still won't explain your edits on the talk page. I'm going to revert the article to where it was before you started. Please work more slowly, use the edit summary, and seek consensus for major changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain the edits, I will have to post over 40-50 links on the article's talk page. Many of the edits are simple copyedits. I am asking if you have any specific questions? I didn't make any major changes. Review my edits to verify.

GordonUS (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "simple copyedits" deleted over 3,200 characters. It is very difficult to review your edits, since there are almost no edit summaries. It appears as if you deleted whole paragraphs.[1] That isn't simple copyediting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of sentences are cluttered with small words and phrases that are not necessary. Its adds up. However, I did remove a few redundant sentences in the 2008 presidential section. For example, the header says "2008 presidential run" and in the article it stated well over 5-6 times "Tancredo is running for the 2008 presidential nom" or with the "2008 presidential candidates." I remove redundancy or obvious statements whenever I see them.

GordonUS (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to discuss and explain your edits. I'm not the oinly editor who's interested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am explaining them now in the edit summaries. If anyone has a question about they can ask me now about the specific edit. If they have a question, it is their responsibility to ask me. I can't anticipate people's questions by going on the talk page.

If anyone has a question, feel free to ask.

GordonUS (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Charlton Heston

Please respond to a discussion of your edits at Talk:Charlton Heston#Who-What-When rule???. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply.

Hadn't noticed he had recently died; I've lowered it to two-day protection, for more information to be available. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've restored the semi-protection. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I've posted a question about a photo you uploaded. See Image talk:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg. If there's no resolution the image may be nominated for deletion on account of faulty license. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:His.steps.dvd.med.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:His.steps.dvd.med.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg

File:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Hermann Goering gives Charles Lindbergh a Nazi medal.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Representative Albert Johnson.jpg

The file File:Representative Albert Johnson.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)