User talk:UnexpectedBanana

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits
Hi

It may be that you do not understand why the changes were made, it is entirely another matter for you to simply revert them. Next time it may be more polite to simply ask why on an editors talk page — editors are more than happy to explain their reasons. It is not usually a good thing to reintroduce incorrect material or replace things which were removed as a matter of policy and style (WP:MOS).

First of all the edit introduced in the Crater section was indeed a mistake. This was due to an AWB "correction" which I had not spotted.

The edits were made because of two reasons.
 * The MoS states that there should not be more than one internal link per article. There were 4 links to "cleaning events" and so the number was reduced.
 * The references were repeats of previous refs and so AWB corrects this by giving the second, third and fourth etc. a name as per MoS.
 * The first becomes  and the second etc. are made into

I have undone your reversions and corrected the "Spirit's" bad edit

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not an innapropriate naming - they could have been called XYZ or bernietherabbit it makes no difference - it is just a ref name. The only thing you needed to do was to change the sentence with the incorrect "spirit's" to "spirit is". It is strange that you are now latching on to the name of the refs when in fact your first concern was that you did not understand why they were changed. I hope now you can see that I was indeed correct apart from the one mistake. Chaosdruid (talk)


 * You are wrong in your assertion that the name of the ref matters when AWB corrects refs as AWB does it automatically. It does not appear anywhere apart from in the ref which is hidden until another editor edits it. The refs were incomplete - lacking correct formatting, dates, publisher etc. and the purpose of AWB is to remove unecessary material and it was because of those incorect formats that AWB named it as it did. It is up to the interested editors such as yourself to follow up and correct the refs, add detail and give them any descriptive names - as you said "I did understand that you obviously need to give proper, descriptive names to refs for the benefit of other editors so they can tell them apart" You have now done that which is great :¬)
 * Do not turn this into something it is not. I informed you of procedure so that you would understand why editors might do those changes that you originally reverted. The fact that you said "I didn't understand that refs had to be merged by policy" shows me that I have indeed succeeded in my aim - to help clarify why, encourage you to understand, and advise you on the poilcy behind those changes I made.
 * It is up to me to delete any posts whcih I decide do not fit on my talk pages, as it is to delete any on yours. I deleted your post as it contained information which was incorrect where you asserted "mistakes" and "inappropriate naming" which is not correct - there was one mistake and the refs were named by AWB, not me. You are now accusing me of being offended and defensive and mention "errors". That is also incorrect and so I will probably delete that too - it is not up to you to decide what my state of mind is, nor how I am feeling ?.
 * If I was offended or being defensive I would not have followed this course of trying to educate you on the reasons and policy and I am being reasonable especialy as, in the posts on my page, you have moved the goalposts from "why they were changed" to "naming". I have already admitted that a mistake was made (see first post) and as no further mistakes were made I am not likely to admit to any. My intent was only to explain in answer to your edit summary and to try to help you further understand policy via MoS. Could you also ensure you sign posts on talk pages as that is the second post you have not signed.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)