User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2015

Durin in Rif Dimashq under Regime troops rebels claim about Durin in Latakia
Durin in Rif Dimashq was changed on rebels held by mistake Helmy1453 want edit Dourin in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=685395016&oldid=685361331 Latakia which rebels was claim that captured but later rebels confirmed that town under Regime troops. See talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Durin_might_be_green_per_pro-rebel_sources Alligator200 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Be careful and try to not f*ck up the map
Re-add again Tall Sakhr in the map (you delete it without any reason) or you will be reported for vandalism.-- HC PUNX  KID 20:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversions
Why are you reverting my edits? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, where is it stated that "articles should avoid links to redirects when possible" - WP:NOTBROKEN, which begins "there is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles", states precisely the opposite. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am thanking you for some of your useful edits, and reverting your not-useful reversions/deletions. You seems to be quite opinionated in some of your edits, and are reverting people's efforts for no good reason other than your personal preference. Please don't do this. Also, Wikiepdia has a policy of using non-redirects when possible, so please stop changing articles to link to redirects rather than the article the redirect points to. Thank you. --Rebroad (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this "policy of using non-redirects when possible" laid down? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTBROKEN again. It clearly states when bypassing redirects is NOT ok, and mine wasn't one of those. If you feel the spelling is wrong, you should get the article linked to renamed. --Rebroad (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense to start with. Also, efficiency. Wikimedia has more work to do when redirects are used. Thirdly, there is no stronger reason to use British English in that article than there is to use American English. There IS a reason to avoid redircts - especially when there is NO OTHER REASON. And there is NO OTHER REASON. --Rebroad (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a spelling error, it's a spelling variant - in this case defence/defense, because British and American spellings differ. This is one of those cases where redirects are useful, see WP:RPURPOSE which says "alternative spellings or punctuation. For example, Colour redirects to Color"; also MOS:ENGVAR, which says "if one variant spelling appears in an article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variants". -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the spelling at Double jeopardy is wrong, that is a matter to bring up at Talk:Double jeopardy, not here, and not on my talk page either. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing your edits with mine. You are the one claiming the spelling is wrong, not me. I don't care which spelling is used. I do care about avoiding re-directs when there is no reason to use them. --Rebroad (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is this. Double jeopardy uses British English. In British English the spelling is "defence". Occasionally somebody will alter the spelling in the article to "defense", either as a spelling "correction" or without leaving a reason at all. This is why two years ago, which you have.
 * Also, please observe the conventions of threaded discussions, and reply here, and not on my talk page. This avoids a split discussion, which are difficult to follow. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop moving my comments to my talk page. If you want the comments all together, move them all to your talk page. The article is NOT in British English. It is in whatever English people chose to use. You cannot dictate that the article is in British English. Wikipedia is a collaboration. Who do you think you are to dictate what flavour of English any article should be written in? If it were an article on something unique to Britain then you would have an argument. As it stands, you are failing to explain why you think the article should be in British English and only British English. You seem to have a very dictatorial style in everything you do on here, including our discussion about it (as evidenced by your constant moving of my comments to my talk page). Please stop riding roughshod over other editors and disrupting Wikipedia in the process. --Rebroad (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The comments are moved here because this is where the thread first started - predates  by six minutes. The thread is on this page because I am trying to understand why you are today making so many reversions to edits that I have made over a period of some years. You do not appear to be reverting other people, and your reverts are spread across a variety of unconnected pages, so I can only conclude that you are going through my contributions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rebroad: According to MOS:ENGVAR (have you read it?) articles should be written consistently in one variant of English. Unless there is a particular reason to change this, it should retain the style in which it was originally written. So if you are trying to change the article to US spelling, you should get consensus for this on the talk page. Therefore your edit should probably be reverted. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started the conversation for you. I suggest you direct your energies there if this issue is important to you. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Make believe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Character. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)