789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Greek influence on Western Culture (view source)
Revision as of 20:41, June 16, 2008
, 20:41, June 16, 2008no edit summary
:Yes, I am sure the article could be better. What we need to have clear is the procedure. It is not acceptable to delete important information or images without the opinion of other editors. You can not ask for explanations when you dont give explanations or wait for a reply. The image of Pericles is necessary. It is infront of his name and represent an important time of Greek development. Images do what words can not do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, I am sure the article could be better. What we need to have clear is the procedure. It is not acceptable to delete important information or images without the opinion of other editors. You can not ask for explanations when you dont give explanations or wait for a reply. The image of Pericles is necessary. It is infront of his name and represent an important time of Greek development. Images do what words can not do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, Joaquin... are you seriously suggesting I didn't want to discuss it with you?
From your talk page:
<div style="background:#eee">::Joaquin, I am curious as to why you think the Pericles image (the only thing I removed) should be on that page, since he isn't mentioned at all except for a link to his page (where the image ''would'' belong). I didn't think it should be there, so I removed it and suggested a change you could make if you wanted to re-add it: namely, talking about Pericles somehow on the page. If you think Pericles is important to greek influence on western culture, it would seem reasonable to say why, instead of insisting on just including his image, regardless of how important you personally might think it is. If you spent a long time looking for it, I'm sorry, but that's not really grounds for including it on a page to which it has no relation at the current time. Thank you and I hope you understand my position.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 23:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::Please respond, Joaquin, so we can resolve this.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
::Well, I know you've read this by now, Joaquin, since a little message appears at the top reminding you that you have new messages, and you have been on and editing over the past days this has been up here. So presumably you are just ignoring it. That's not very reasonable when I am trying to resolve the issue with this page, so I think if you are on again and editing without responding, it is reasonable for me to re-make my changes. It's not fair you just refuse to discuss it--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:55, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::I am reverting back to my last good version, Joaquin. I still encourage you to discuss it, if you are still interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Hey Joaquin, I noticed that despite my many messages here asking for explanation, you have reverted my edit today some days after I made it, without explanation here or on my talk page or on the article's talk page. I would refer you to Conservapedia's Guidelines, which suggest, ''"Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries."''
:::Please do me the courtesy of replying, not just reverting without explanation.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 23:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I see you have reverted again. You know a little box pops up when you have a new message, so Im pretty confident you have seen this by now, especially since you have replied to other people here. This is incredibly rude.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 11:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not sure what I have to do to get you to give me some basic respect as an editor. You won't discuss your edit, you just keep reverting. You just did it again. Why are you so insistent on putting paragraphs in blockquotes when it is needless, rewriting the page to poorer English, and inserting a picture of an Athenian general who is not mentioned in the article?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)</div>
You have exhibited nothing but disrespect for me, not even deigning to apologize for blocking me unfairly over this issue, and afterwards simply ignoring me and my requests to discuss it!
The image of Pericles would be entirely relevant, but there is ''nothing about Pericles on the page.'' There is a ''link'' to ''his'' article, but his name is not otherwise mentioned. And I urge you to please back up your claim that I "deleted important information." Inasmuch as I can see, I ''incorporated'' your edits concisely and better except for your penchant for blockquoting and the image.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 16:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)