User talk:CouncilConnect

CouncilConnect, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi CouncilConnect! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The use of IMDb as a source[edit]

I noticed that you recently used IMDB as a source for information in a biography article. Please note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. You can read more about the reasons for this here, here and here. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed era styles[edit]

WP:ERA does not say we use the original style but that we shouldn't change the established style without discussion, and the era style was changed in 2009. Whether or not that was done by discussion or simply accepted by lack of anyone wishing to change it is irrelevant, it's clearly the established style. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that with you not the above; it's clearly not the established style or not in any way clear that your opposing viewpoint is correct (unless muddy ponds are clear).--193.62.184.163 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Established" is your opinion, Mr Weller, whereas I can say that that the style was changed without reasons and without discussion either. There is no set time limit for fixing the era style, nor is it irrelevant that the policy is ignored. That is your POV which you are attempting to force on me.--CouncilConnect (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?[edit]

I find your very dishonest characterization that "someone" moved the page to "make an era change in the title (without raising a discussion)" quite disingenuous and offensive. The discussion and consensus for the move to Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) is here at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1#Title of this article. I moved it on 6 February 2018‎, several months after the discussion petered out. Today, 118 days after the last comment in that discussion, you move it back? WTF? If that's your aproach to WP:CONSENSUS you're going to have a difficult time here. Mojoworker (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that carrying out edits that are contrary to most of the comments in that discussion is grounds for valid complaint, Mojo_ especially after leaving such a gap in time, presumably to reduce the level of opposition. Approach has been misspelled.--154.59.156.125 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]