User talk:82.3.252.147

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Year in film delinking

Hi there. You are delinking a lot of years from film articles incorrectly. The links are contextual as they link to that year in film articles, not just a general linking of years. Please stop delinking these. Ben W Bell talk 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

its not incorrect, as you can see in WP:MOSDATE there is no consensus for the use of such links, whether they link to "YEAR" in "YEAR in film". Majority of these articles passed FA without any such links (they were added later), lets leave it that way. cheers.

Actually it is acceptable, see below, and is completely accepted by all editors in the film projects and those who deal with the film articles. Ben W Bell talk 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion explantion

I explained the reason for the reversions above. PLease stop removing these links, they are perfectly acceptable and incontext. I don't know why you get from the MOS that they are unacceptable, please read the MOS WP:MOSDATE#Partial_dates. Ben W Bell talk 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop with these removals of links, agreed upon and used by hundreds of editors. These edits are disruptive to the work of many people, and since this IP address has only ever made these edits it makes it very hard to WP:Assume good faith, when it appears there is a WP:POINT going on. Ben W Bell talk 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I ask you again please stop and discuss your edits before arbitrarily removing the work of many because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edits like this should be discussed not arbitrarily removed because you object to it. You are causing Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing to these film articles with your large sweep changing and constant reversions. I ask you once more to please stop. Ben W Bell talk 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
there are thousands of editors who do not want singular years linked. why do you insist you must have them linked, especially as WP:MOSDATE specifically states there is no consensus to link them? if anything, the addition of those links is a disruptive action. they all appear to have been added recently, as the vast majority of FAs passed FAC WITHOUT those links in place. please look at yourself before objecting to "constant reversions".
There is also no consensus not to have them linked. Saying these films that were FAs didn't pass with the links is also rubbish. Blade Runner passed with the link in place [1], as did Jaws [2] and Richard III and those are the first ones I've picked up. These links are also not new, they have been in articles for many years. I ask you one last time to discuss these changes and stop making a WP:POINT at least until there is some discussions instead of continuing your disruptive editing which have been reverted by more than one editor. Please stop or I will have to see about getting you temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption, something I really don't want to do. Ben W Bell talk 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ben. It is unwise to make mass changes like this without consultation. The JPStalk to me 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is obviously a troll. If he or she had any real interest in bettering the articles, he or she would establish an account, join WikiProject Films and try to change a well-established consensus. My opinion: anoynmous edits can be reverted at will. Zotdragon 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)