User talk:HighKing/Archives/2013/August

handball disambiguation

Please have a look at Talk:Team handball#Requested move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I've left an explanation. The quote in question wasn't referenced. All that needed to happen was for the Anon IP to point out it was a quote and point out the web page. Or open a discussion somewhere, or respond on their Talk page. Was it edit warring? In my opinion, an Anon IP that behaves in that way is usually a vandal. Their behaviour gave no indication that they understood what they were editing, or that the knew where the quote could be actually found, or that they were interested in helping editors understand why they were editing at all. It was interesting how the discussion then turned to an attempt to block me as an extension of the BI sanctions. Very interesting indeed.... --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you can get a sense of ones behaviour from 1 revert. I would say that a user that engages in such IMOS abuse and at a rate of knots probably isnt reading the article or content and just removing the term with care or consideration. This point has been raised before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've a number of thoughts. You should have left an edit summary for your reverts for a start. Then had you simply responded on your Talk page after I'd posted there (twice), and pointed out where the reference existed - although I suspect you didn't know that either - that would have put it to bed straight away. Or made a case as to why you believed WP:IRE-IRL wasn't relevant to that edit. Anything would have been better than leaving a comment that I was in breach of a Topic Ban, which is totally wrong and I suspect was simply a tactic to draw attention way from your edit. It's not like you didn't know how to discuss your edit - I note that you didn't have any problems discussing at AN/I when you were arguing for a Topic Ban... I note you've now reverted at Fifth year without giving a reason other than "Please discuss at Talkpage first". In future, please provide a reason for your revert in the edit summary - you'll find editors more engaging that way. I'll post a query at that IMOS talk page. --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all I received no such message. 2nd, if an edit is met with revert, you simply do not revert, you take it to a talkpage. Saying that your edit was IMOS tells me nothing. An edit summary telling us how this article applied to IMOS would of been more helpful. Show me any of the discussions you have started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was the first notice on 2nd Aug, and this was the 2nd notice after you starting leaving personalised comments in the edit summary. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion

Thanks for your suggestion here. Sometimes one can't see the wood for the trees. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No probs. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)