User talk:Crewsaver

Go Crewsaver:-) What you are posting is truthful and properly referenced, unlike the vandal who has been deleting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodigger (talk • contribs)

London Metropolitan University
Can you tell me why it's "malicious" to refer to Mr. Floud as a professor? I can understand most of the others, but it seems unclear to me from the context within the article why that one is a point of contention, and I don't see any real reference to it on the article's talk page. Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In referring to a "removal of malicious edit" I was not referring to the addition of the title 'Professor' to refer to Roderick Floud. I was referring to that fact that once again a large block of my own referenced text had been entirely deleted. If someone is going to engage in this kind of action then I don't feel obliged to attend to the fairer aspects of what they've altered, I'm just going to revert to the previous edit (i.e. restore the text that was deleted). On the other hand, if the person in question wants to add accurate - and properly referenced - text without deleting factual things that they simply don't like, then that's fine. Crewsaver 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do have to say that on the whole I prefer your version (among other things, the language is more encyclopedic), but I think there's probably some room for compromise on smaller issues. Have you considered an article RFC on content as a way of stopping the edit war? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm new to Wikipedia and haven't quite figured out all the ins-and-outs yet. I'm also an html dunce. But I'll check the help sections and see what I can do. I have left a message for user 163.167.99.92 but haven't had any response. Btw, I have actually gone back and added the title "Professor" for Sir Roderick Floud, as well as the other editor's alteration to the comments about the union facilities. Crewsaver 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help. If you have any questions about anything here, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. As for your latest edits to the article, that's probably a good way of going about things. It'll help focus attention on the material that's actually disputed, and keep any discussion from getting tied up in side issues. Nice gesture of good faith, too. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem receptive, and has contined to edit the article. I've requested page protection, which will temporarily lock the article, in the hope of convincing him to act more reasonably. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)