User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2023/April
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SergeWoodzing in topic April 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
April 2023
Hello! Please do not make any change to an article that clearly goes against talk page consensus like you did here. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I reverted it to the talk page consensus. TFD (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- See RfC on description in lede, where the consensus was decided. TFD (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That RfC is obsolete as of the subsequent publication of the coronation invitation which is when it became necessary for Wikipedia to acknowledge the indisputable fact that she also is called Queen Camilla in the lead of her article. You reverted against the consensus achieved at that time and in that talk section to include the aka. Please be more careful that you are up to date, not months behind, before reverting! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- While it may be your interpretation that because Camilla will be crowned Queen Camilla, that is her current title, that is Original Research and has no consensus among readers. I suggest you wait until she receives her title before edit warring. In the meantime, you may write to the King and ask him to change his wife's title on the Royal Family website. TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your sarcasm and ridicule are duly noted. Your unfounded accusation on edit warring is a clearer personal attack.
- Constructive suggestion: take a break, a few deep breaths and have a good concentrated calm read of WP:OWN. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss article content, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. Already your "bold" edit has been reverted four times by different editors. While bold is good, you need to get consensus for your edit. I suggest you provide reliable secondary sources that the coronation invitation confirms that Camilla's title is Queen and also that reliable secondary sources are now using that title. While I cannot speak for others, I have no interest in what her title is, just that it is accurately reflected in the article. TFD (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- My messages here are about your behavior, which is what user talk pages mainly are for. This is not about article content. You reverted against consensus in the current up-to-date talk page section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- As other editors are telling you on the article talk page, the consensus is to describe Camilla's title and position as Queen Consort until she assumes her new title upon her coronation. Therefore I only reverted in order to restore the consensus version. If you establish a consensus for your version, then I will of course accept that. I suggest you either endeavor to persuade editors to accept your version or wait until 6th May. TFD (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Several other editors in that talk section want her obvious and well-sourced aka to be added to the lead now. The fact that you do not wish to see that, and wish to ignore it, is at the root of this behavioral problem. Pretending something isn't there doesn't make its absence real. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- As other editors are telling you on the article talk page, the consensus is to describe Camilla's title and position as Queen Consort until she assumes her new title upon her coronation. Therefore I only reverted in order to restore the consensus version. If you establish a consensus for your version, then I will of course accept that. I suggest you either endeavor to persuade editors to accept your version or wait until 6th May. TFD (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- My messages here are about your behavior, which is what user talk pages mainly are for. This is not about article content. You reverted against consensus in the current up-to-date talk page section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss article content, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. Already your "bold" edit has been reverted four times by different editors. While bold is good, you need to get consensus for your edit. I suggest you provide reliable secondary sources that the coronation invitation confirms that Camilla's title is Queen and also that reliable secondary sources are now using that title. While I cannot speak for others, I have no interest in what her title is, just that it is accurately reflected in the article. TFD (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- While it may be your interpretation that because Camilla will be crowned Queen Camilla, that is her current title, that is Original Research and has no consensus among readers. I suggest you wait until she receives her title before edit warring. In the meantime, you may write to the King and ask him to change his wife's title on the Royal Family website. TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- That RfC is obsolete as of the subsequent publication of the coronation invitation which is when it became necessary for Wikipedia to acknowledge the indisputable fact that she also is called Queen Camilla in the lead of her article. You reverted against the consensus achieved at that time and in that talk section to include the aka. Please be more careful that you are up to date, not months behind, before reverting! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how you can call it a behavioral problem when I have made only three reverts ever to the article, one of which was for vandalism and the other two were spaced a week apart. If I'm getting GBH in the ear hole for this, I pity the poor sods who go over 3rr. TFD (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Reverting against consensus is always controversial, in my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- In fact I restored the consensus version agreed at the RfC. If you had consensus, your edits would not have been quickly reverted by four different editors other than myself. TFD (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- That RfC was obsolete by then, and the up-to-date section /the only one I've ever meant) showed a clear preference. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- In fact I restored the consensus version agreed at the RfC. If you had consensus, your edits would not have been quickly reverted by four different editors other than myself. TFD (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing I only see one behavioral problem which is your baseless accusations of a TFD behavioral problem. North8000 (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)