User talk:Keeper of Albion

GypsyCrusader MOS:Ethnicity

"Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability"

Is what is said on the page however, due to what he is famous for (being a white nationalist despite not being white) then surely this is relevant and should be added to his page.

Theres a discussion on his talk page about this Thursby16 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to include the subject’s ethnicity in the lead sentence was bold and has now been reverted by two editors per WP:BRD. Your persistent reinstating of your own preferred version constitutes edit warring. Please cease it immediately. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto VI

Hello Keeper of Albion, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style (MoS) that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Grand Theft Auto VI, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. In particular, please see guidance on serial commas. If you have any concerns or would like to discuss certain changes, please feel free to reply or reach out, or start a discussion on the article's talk page or the MoS talk page. Please keep in mind that discussion—and not disruption—is the key to maintaining a positive and effective encyclopedia. Thank you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t deviate from any prescriptions at MOS:OXFORD. Don’t dare accuse me of being disruptive when the issue is a matter of preference. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:OXFORD, Oxford commas are permissible so long as each article is internally consistent; removing them is a deviation from that guideline. Moreover, repeatedly attempting to reinstate into an article a "matter of preference"—one not prescribed by the Manual of Style—can often be seen as disruptive, especially when it's done through several edits over the course of several months despite reversions. You're familiar with WP:BRD; I recommend starting a discussion if you feel strongly about your proposed changes. Thanks again, and happy editing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter: Resurrection

On the Episodes section, only the universal and essential information for the episode is mentioned. For more specific information, there are articles for each episode. Links goes on the first time something is mentioned, not later later times. Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which information do you disagree with including? Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The episode summaries are already fine, being what is necessary to comment on the episode. Characters like Al or Gareth in that episode have almost no relevance and therefore it is not necessary to mention them. Second, the links are only added the first time they are mentioned, but the first mention is not left without a link to add it the second time. And third, the changes in Quinn's character are correct. The first reference was a partial confirmation that can be removed with the full confirmation of the second link. Quinn's description is correct, and even more so with a reference. But only that, other editions that you have made today seem correct to me, I only disagree on these three things. Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’m well aware of link MOS; I don’t know why you keep mentioning it. And I unknowingly reverted your edit regarding the sources.

I think the core characters should be introduced in our summaries as they are introduced in the series, actually. It’s far less awkward than having them suddenly named further down in the episodes table. Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the link thing because it was the second time I've had to correct it today. And if you add the names of Prater's killers, don't give nicknames or anything, just the names, and mention as little about them as possible, especially Al and Gareth, Mia and Lowell already have the univeral information on the episodes Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t need to mention any information about the characters beyond their names. What do you mean by "universal information" and why are you opposed to including their nicknames in the summary? Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By universal information, I mean adding only the basic information about what happens in each episode, without going into unnecessary details. These details will be mentioned in each corresponding episode article. And regarding aliases, unless a character's real name is unknown from the start, they are never added to the summaries and we only refer to them by their alias, omitting the alias. Aliases are something that is never used in any television series, not just Dexter. Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious "British English" edits

You appear to have been contacted repeatedly about this but please stop making edits on the spurious basis that you are enacting "British English", when addressing spellings or punctuation that are perfectly acceptable in some style guides of said. Personally, I don't tend to use the Oxford style guide but it is perfectly acceptable and flip-flopping between styles is a waste of time and effort, including your own. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling#International_organizations and MOS:Oxford. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern about my time and effort. It’s been duly noted. Thank you also for conducting a thorough investigation into my talk page history, as well as my edit history to find the Oxford style guide I’ve cited.

I’ll continue to ensure the appropriate articles are written in formal British English, and I hope you will in future refrain from edit warring as you did at Scotland today. Keeper of Albion (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bold edit at Scotland was reverted. Discussion as to whether the proposed change is to be implemented is the next step. It ain't BRRD.

"The Oxford guide (you've) cited"? The only mention you've made (unless it's in a section that you've blanked) is the apparent notion that it is permissable to impose your personal "matter of preference" against it, despite its validity. It isn't. Are you claiming Oxford stylings are not British English? Even if you are, get that accepted (hint, you won't) before making persistent changes contrary to policy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]