User talk:PeRshGo

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeRshGo.

Messages

Hi. You've just reverted the changes I made at Knights Templar (Freemasonry). I'm not going to get into a silly revert and re-revert situation, but I do think Jsinger123 (talk · contribs) had a point in suggesting that the two "part of the series..." boxes make more sense next to each other. Also, can you explain why you think the York Rite composite badge should have such prominence? This badge is unknown in stand-alone Knight Templar masonry. The text under it is all fully explained under the individual badges of the Orders, and much of it is simply repetition. The claimed 'Motto of the Order' is also quite alien on my side (UK) of the Atlantic, where it is in fact the motto of a quite different masonic Order, and not associated with Knight Templar masonry. The prominence of this picture gives the article an inappropriate US slant. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also reversed the 'cross pattee' and 'cross and crown' badges so that they match the order of the text (where we talk about York Rite first, independent type KT second), so I'm also curious as to why you switched them back round again? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an edit conflict issue, and I was attempting to appease Jsinger123 (talk · contribs) by keeping some of his changes. I did notice the scaling down of the YR KT logo but I figured we'd get a chance to talk about it. Personally I think it should be given prominence simply because it's the only unique symbol of the bunch. All other logos associated with the Knights Templar are common heraldic symbols and are not unique to the order. PeRshGo (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You've violated 1RR at Pro-life feminism again. Now that there's no possible way you can claim to be unaware of this rule, please revert yourself and achieve consensus for your proposal on the talk page rather than edit warring. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I reverted was your deletion of an entirely cited section and in a second edit returned wording to its original state before the debate given your claims of no consensus. If you’re going to game the system to get your way at least do it right. PeRshGo (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you think you were right; you still violated 1RR. Where would we be if "But I'm right!" was an acceptable excuse for breaking rules? Please revert. (And no, that wasn't gaming, but nice try.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one and only one revert. The other edit was a direct response to your comment that there was no consensus on the listing of Laury Oaks. Stop playing games. I'm sick of your constant bad faith. PeRshGo (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that one. I went too far. Such comments on behavior are not meant for article talk pages. PeRshGo (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or anywhere. It's not the only comment that merits being removed, but thank you for doing what you did do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Notification

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Pro-life feminism, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Abortion/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]