Content deleted Content added
→June 2024: Reply |
→June 2024: Reply |
||
Line 22:
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|assume ownership of articles]], as you did at [[:List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom]]. <!-- Template:uw-own4 --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't assumed ownership of anything.
:Literally the ''only'' thing I have done in that article that has involved overriding any other editors' wishes is revert removals of a Daily Mail citation while information sourced from the Daily Mail remained in the article with no other supporting citation. In each case, I explained why I had done it, spelt out precisely what content was currently sourced from the Daily Mail, pointed the editors to a discussion I'd started about what to do about those particular citations, ''and made clear, explicitly, that I would not object to the editors removing the citations so long as they also removed the content that was sourced from those Daily Mail articles.'' My beef with the removals - as I've spelt out every time - was that they falsified the references list by removing a source the article still in fact used. Whatever the merits of making or reverting edits that remove citations of sources an article's content still depends on - and there's an ongoing discussion of that on David's Talk page that I may yet bring to a noticeboard for an outside opinion - it's still the case that the matter could've been resolved instantly if you or David had simply agreed the information sourced from the Daily Mail should be removed and asked me to go ahead and remove it.
:Instead we're now in a situation where, for reasons unclear to me and that you have not articulated anywhere, ''you'' have reverted us to a version where we're sourcing information from the Daily Mail, despite now-unanimous consensus from three users involved in the discussion on the article's Talk page to rip out anything for which the Mail is the only source, and despite David also agreeing on his Talk page that this should happen.
:I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have undone edits of mine that implemented other users' unopposed suggestions from the Talk page without offering any real explanation of why, while SHOUTING AT ME IN ALL CAPS (and personally insulting me) in your edit summary, and have sneered at my attempts to discuss and contribute on the grounds of me being a new user with few contributions. I don't think ''I'm'' the one exhibiting "ownership" behaviour, here. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 09:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you purposefully and blatantly [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harass]] other editors. <!-- Template:uw-harass4 --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||