Talk:Creegbrawse

Untitled
It's polite to talk about reversions on the discussion page, but I realise that not everyone is polite. While I won't Start a revert war about the pointless and petty inclusion of 'England' in this type of article, I will revert unnecessary edits that make articles less readable. Bretonbanquet 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also polite not to disguise POV edits with a dishonest edit summary. There are now probably several hundred thousand words of discussion on the edits in question, if you want my edit summary here it is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, Talk:England and Talk:Cornwall (archives). Joe D (t) 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You may well consider it dishonest, but then you would do. Anyone who just has a differing opinion to yours would appear to be dishonest. And it was a POV edit, was it? Right, and yours isn't. I've read all that discussion, and it doesn't appear to conclude anything. Don't worry, I won't try and interrupt your POV-pushing editing any more - just go ahead and change what you want. Wikipedia dips a little further. Bretonbanquet 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the straw poll at the link above concluded that, whilst there were many different opinions and ideas about the best way to describe uk geography, the majority of editors wanted to see the home nation included in some form,(some with the addition of UK and some without). The use of Uk alone was a minority view. take careMammal4 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that - the views of the minority, i.e. those offended by the inclusion of 'England' were listened to, I realise that. But the majority being what it is, get their way, and those who are offended get offended. Nothing new there. That's why I shan't be wasting everyone's time with a revert war - I understand the way it works. But I reserve the right to be fully offended. I'd be quite happy to see this article deleted - there are probably grounds for it anyway. Care always taken. Bretonbanquet 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)