Revision as of 13:53, 21 August 2015 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Articles under discretionary sanctions: question for colleague← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:03, 21 August 2015 edit undoSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,488 edits →Articles under discretionary sanctionsNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:Yes, you are correct. I will try to be more careful about the tone of my replies. ] (]) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | :Yes, you are correct. I will try to be more careful about the tone of my replies. ] (]) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks! --] (]) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | ::Thanks! --] (]) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
Thank you for your recent contributions to ] and ] and their respective talk pages. These two articles were created in late 2005. May I respectfully ask, what brought you to these articles for the first time, 18 August 2015? Thank you. ] (]) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:03, 21 August 2015
Comment by Anmccaff
I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself.Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've made enough changes that I'd appreciate an extra set of eyeballs taking a look at 'em, if your time allows.Anmccaff (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Engagement with Streetcar conspiracy article
Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:
- It is much easier to make many small changes than one big one.
- It allows you to test your ideas, while getting feedback and building trust with other contributors.
- It is much more likely to be successful - do remember that major changes can be made with small steps.
- and... very importantly, it will avoid you getting sucked into conflicts that Anmccaff, who has now reappeared, and who has created discord independently on two separate WP articles recently with different people (see Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: and Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston).
I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!
-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Spring
Are you looking for the old content of a redirect just click on history of the article. You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live?Springee (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Barry Goldwater
Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles under discretionary sanctions
Please note that WP:ACDS applies to The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks, both WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. I strongly recommend you review the ArbCom findings. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. I will try to be more careful about the tone of my replies. Springee (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)