User talk:SarsonsIsland

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of York. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''Note that the two date formats acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles are day–month–year (DMY) format—e.g., 11 October 2016 or 11 Oct 2016; and month–day–year (MDY) format—e.g., October 11, 2016 or Oct 11, 2016. The relevant section of the Manual of Style is at MOS:DATEFORMAT.'' Keri (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I hope I have this right.

War? Not really, no: appearances can be deceptive. I've been working on a piece set around the battle in question and needed understandable days of the week, so 'helpfully' filled them in - who wouldn't share, if they had the information? Then I thought I'd made a mistake when the days of the week disappeared, so replaced them. After that, I had an aggressively-worded (or rather, 'stock phrased' and slightly inaccurate) note. I made a change again, explaining use in comments. Recently, needing reference for a little longer, I made a single change away from the body of the text. Fortunately, I'm finished with the blessèd thing this week and can wash my hands of the whole boiling.

Now.

I understand standards must be stood by. My one, perhaps sophistric, comment is that the form of the dates in question were not changed from the specified format: day names were added to promote clarity within the timeline. As I had intended to offer posts based on other research, could you advise on a form in which dates might be expressed to allow for use of days of the week, without advertently (as it would be, following the above warning) contravening the style manual?

SarsonsIsland (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)