Talk:Second Bank of the United States/Archives/2018
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Kleuske in topic Federal Reserve System navbox
 | 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. |
Federal Reserve System navbox
@Kleuske: Your reversion is baseless. The Second Bank of the United States was a national bank and this is why it is in Federal Reserve navigation box. Just because it is not anymore is no grounds for removing the Federal Reserve navigation box from the article. Unless you provide me with any defensible reason for not allowing me to revert back to my previous edit within an hour, I'm notifying the vandalism message boards. -- Jajhill (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Key word here is was. Today it's a monument, not a bank.
The article is about the monument, not the bank.Besides the onus is on you to gain consensus. Also the within an hour demand is ludicrous. That's not how Wikipedia works. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)- @Kleuske: 76 of the 108 references in the article are in the section about the bank's history, and 14 of the 108 are about the terms of the bank's charter or the bank's regulatory mechanisms. At least 83 percent of the references in the article are about the bank. Only one reference in the entire article is about the building's current usage. I would say that the history of the bank is probably why anyone would be reading the article, not because of its current usage. Your reasons for reversion are not even remotely common sensical, which is one of the criteria Wikipedia policy requires for achieving consensus. Also, the Wikipedia "BOLD, reverse, discuss cycle" policy is not intended as an excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Reversions are only valid if they are supported by policies, guidelines, or common sense, which as far as I can tell, your reversion is supported by none of. In other words, as far as I am concerned, you are violation of Wikipedia policy, not me. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)