Talk:Battle of Newton's Station

Reverts of superfluous information
Please explain why you insist to add redundant information to this article. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? --91.10.57.119 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * well why do you insist on deleting the notes section? -- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING EMPTY!! --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 users have reverted against you, don't you think you might be doing something wrong also stop shouting and swearing!-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  18:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was empty because you deleted the only reference in the article. Maybe instead of violating policies, and arguing with multiple editors you should find a new reference for the article? - Happysailor  (Talk) 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Arguing"? WTF are you talking about, everybody but me avoided any discussion about this.
 * The section I removed was not about Battle of Newton's Station, AS I EXPLAINED IN MY COMMENT.
 * Well, I wouldn't know what it could be, since nobody explained shit. Also, this is not a democracy. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The removal itself
I don't see how the section you had removed was redundant. It was about the battle (or its aftermath). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading it in more detail, I agree. The removed section places the raid of Newtons Station in context during the larger raid. It could have possibly been reqorded a bit to make it more relevant, but shouldn't have been removed. - Happysailor  (Talk) 18:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be unusual (not to say redundant) to explain larger things withing smaller things' articles. Example: Grierson's Raid, where the Vicksburg Campaign is referenced, but not explained. Vicksburg Campaign, where the Civil War is referenced, but not explained. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * that doesn't explain why you continuely deleted it and the notes section, if you stopped and waited maybe we would have discussed.-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I explained that sections of the article do not belong to the article, and I show examples, and that still doesn't explain it? What more do you need?
 * There is evidence for the fact that everybody but me was trying to avoid a discussion.
 * (@Mike, these counter-factual accusation are what I call rude.) --91.10.41.121 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it might be irrevelent but under your argument it should still be referenced, we cant do that with out a reference section!-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have I called it "irrevelent"? That was a mistake then, "redundant" is a better description.
 * I don't mind notes (or references) in a Notes (or References) section, why would I? Just add the notes and the section. --91.10.41.121 (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So you thought this would be a constructive way to continue the discussion? Why am I the one called rude? --91.10.41.121 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)