User talk:Racconish

Vanity

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you! Codrin.B (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing the articles you wrote from speedy deletion. I dream of horses @ 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

?

I find this baffling. Instead of wasting time wronging rights and pointing fingers, perhaps use of new information in the latest article would improve the overall standards of wikipedia. Surely and experienced editor such as yourself would realize this. I find it absurd that you should delete my contributions, which as far as I see, have corrected and made the article more accurate. You even deleted an obvious correction of the spelling. If you genuinely have your interests set on improving the page, you should use your time to use information in the latest article and add to the page, not remove contributions by other editors, who may not have your experience, but may know more about the subject.

TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added 5 references to the source you provided, which does not establish The Economist was wrong in calling Chamsi-Pasha a former textile agent. Please discuss matters related to the article on the article's talk page. Racconish ^Tk 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not threaten. All editors are equal and you are no exception to the rules of wikipedia. All you said applies to you as well, do not lecture other members about rules you clearly do not abide by and do not delete messages you are ashamed of, which accuse you of bias.

TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not threatening but warning you. Vandalizing or Edit warring are not appropriate responses. And I did not delete your messages on Moxon but move them to the article's talk page where they belong. Racconish ^Tk 16:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it unusual for you to suggest being attacked. The fact is you must see things from somebody else's perspective otherwise it will be viewed a inconsiderate. The article is where I call 'middle ground' now, until further material which would enhance the quality of the page emerges. Thank you, hopefully in future we collaborate on issues not oppose one another.

Southpole1 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Attack raised at WP:WQA and article discussed at its talk page. Thanks, Racconish ^Tk 06:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Moxon Huddersfield. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 without further notice. Sparthorse (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call, thanks.Racconish ^Tk 16:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for taking a mature attitude there. I hope that the dispute can be resolved amicably. Best luck, Sparthorse (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

At least, I'll give it a chance. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe "I should be reminded". This is not Primary school. I hope the edit is satisfactory and we can move on from this. Thanks for your help.Southpole1 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)