Talk:Wilkie Bard

Reverts by IP(s)[edit]

An IB adds nothing to this short article as it simply repeats the very basic information presently given in the lead. Despite being advised to come here and start a discussion, IP(s) are continuing to revert without giving any reason - coincidentally the same IP range (O2 mobile 82.132.xxx.xxx) appears to have reverted Cassianto's edits on a number of other articles too. I have not left a message on any of the constantly changing IP talk pages but instead have tried to draw their attention to this discussion via an edit summary to encourage their participation. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And within minutes, an IP reverts again - still without using the talk page .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another IP joins in the block evading behaviour. I note, laughingly, that they claim I’m at fault as the box has been in situ since 2009 and it is me who has to go and form a consensus to remove it. Bull. Shit. No consesus was ever formed to include one 8 years ago and the fact it’s never been removed, does not mean a silent consensus is in place. Maybe the user of the multiple IP’s would care to join in this discussion, rather than conduct it it edit summaries. Cassianto ^Talk 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article. Discussing it here is definitely the way forward. --John (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the deletion of this information, which has been on the page since 2009. There is no reason to delete. Infoboxes serve important purposes. This 3R is self-serving and protecting the page is an abuse of Admin power in service of one editor's known hostility to Infoboxes. It is not okay to have a personal agenda against a widely used information tool. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're a bit of an idiot then, aren't you. Also, I'd ask you to concentrate on the content and not the contributor. If you can't do that, then kindly disappear. Cassianto ^Talk 16:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well done. Outright name calling. How is THAT okay. Beyond your deleting legitimate content and being the guilty 3R person here, just step off and kindly keep it at least mildly nasty, which thanks for posting on my Talk page, but no thanks. And telling an editor to disappear. You are representing the WORST of En Wikipedia editors. And @John: by supporting this editor as an Admin, how is this okay, any of it? It's not. It's not defensible on any level. I'm appalled at the support given this editor. BrillLyle (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fully protected the article. You both need to cool it or this will be out of my hands. Start an RfC on the infobox. Stop calling BryllLyle names, Cassianto, and stop calling the removal of the infobox vandalism, BrillLyle. --John (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I really appreciate you saying something about the name calling. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BrilleLyle, go about your business elsewhere, and I'll go about mine. You can OWN the top right hand side of this article, if you wish, and if it makes you happy, which it clearly does. Cassianto ^Talk 17:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Wilkie Bard.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]