User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2020/March
 | 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. |
Reverting destination updates
Hello, could You please not revert the updates regarding the new destinations in articles about airports? I see I'm not the first user to be affected. If You do not like stating destinations served in the articles about airports, please propose a rule to not write the "Destinations" section altogether. Until then, please stop reverting well-sourced updates. Ondrusj (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk to me my friend
Let’s talk,I’m not here to argue but Brighton is not a town anymore can we try and agree on something? Glman83 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You clearly are here to argue. You do not have consensus for the changes you want to make and I fail to see why you have such a problem with the concept of two towns forming a city. Just please stop edit warring before you get yourself blocked, and find something constructive to do.Charles (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m not here to argue I promise you, a few users have said they are happy with this wording,I don’t know how you can argue with the Queens letter and the email From Brighton MP office,can I just ask why you don’t like the change ? Glman83 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thames Travel
The 6 new buses are slowly starting to arrive Charles, they are Enviro 200 MMCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.68.207 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Hi Charles
Thank you for your notes on my attempt to remedy the absence of reference to the Bronze Age settlement in Eastbourne. I take on board your comments which are of course correct. I recognise the need to a) cite references and b) keep it all relevant to the tenor of the page. I will try again this time with references. I received another note saying I had copied and pasted (which I had, from Historic England). I want some of the info on the Eastbourne page but will have to learn to steer a course that avoids copyright infringement. Thank you again. Best regards Dan (user: Cadre2002) Cadre2002 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC) |
September 2019
Your recent contributions at Extinction Rebellion appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Daily Express is RS as far as I know, Daily Telegraph certainly is. Just because you don't agree with something does not make it a lie. You should also consider Biting newbies and civility Lyndaship (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)