| Revision as of 12:59, 27 July 2008 editSkomorokh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,990 edits →You are now blatantly edit-warring: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:09, 17 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Edit warring== | |||
| I undid your edit because of ]. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] (])</span> 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Admins here seem prone to insist one "handle it on the talk page." They don't recognize the reality that what the editor has got to do is win edit wars against morons. I went to #wikipedia-en and asked how to win an edit war, and they said: don't edit war. (Eventually, though, someone did give me concrete advice: request page protection. Still, the initial reaction indicates the problem.) This attitude is totally detached from reality. If someone refuses to listen, or to listen to reason, or is incapable of reason, you've got to edit war. —]<sub>]]</sub> | |||
| :Well, that's OK, I just did that to get a high quality version to link to from my user page. But, you know, the punctuation is now inconsistent within that section. If you are going to revert my changes, you should also go through the whole section and change all the punctuation so it's the same way everywhere. (Consistency of style is a lot more important than the particular style.) —]<sub>]]</sub> 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : to highlight what is relevant. —JB] Read your note on your user page. The admins are right, of course, that you shouldn't "edit war." If the other users are editing according to an agenda or are doing things against Misplaced Pages rules, you can try to get them to stop yourself by giving them warnings, but if it doesn't work out you may need administrator assistance to get the user blocked to enforce the rules. Naturally, inappropriate edits like that should be undone, but that doesn't mean that having an edit war is the right way to resolve the problem. On the other hand, if the other editors aren't breaking the rules and simply disagree with your vision for the article, then discussion is the right thing to do. Yes, that can lead to a stalemate but there are ways to break it, for instance, by going to ], or other forms of ]. Edit warring in this kind of case just makes things worse because it makes everyone more upset. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == ] == | ||
| ::What I would like to point out is that "administrator assistance," such as through dispute resolution, through requesting page protection or a block for disruption, etc., are nothing but means of winning the edit war. They are not distinct from it. It is only the edit war that creates the need for administrator assistance; and it is only through obtaining the support of the administrators for a particular version of a page that an edit war can definitively be won. The problem I am highlighting is that such support is likely to be withheld with some admonition to discuss, regardless of whether this is possible. Look, for example, at the . If the problem could have been sorted out on the talk page, there would have been no need for protection. And in fact the conflict is not resolved: there is nothing preventing the same user from adding the same content at this point. | |||
| Hi! I saw your comments on Coren's talk page, and I looked at part of ]. I think that when there's a problem such as you describe at Coren's talk page, that it helps to get more editors involved and having the page on their watchlist so they can revert edits which go against the consensus of other editors. So I tried to participate; but I couldn't find the statement by you about what you're trying to change in the article. (After finding it, of course I'll use my own judgement as to whether I agree with you or not.) I have two suggestions: first, that you make your case clearly and prominently on the article talk page, and somehow make it easy to find (e.g. by posting fewer comments about the behaviour of admins and other editors, so that your post about article content stands out; and perhaps by posting comments with pointers back to your earlier comment); and secondly, that you give me a link to where you've made your case. (Including both what the material is that you would like to change, and the reasons why.) Thanks. By the way, in my opinion there's no use trying to persuade administrators to participate on the grounds that they should because they're administrators. It doesn't work that way. What you need, I think, is more editors; and administrators can choose to edit an article or not, just like anybody else, and are at least as busy as anybody else and there are many articles to choose from. Content policies are enforced by editors, not especially by administrators. Administrators will help by protecting a page etc. when needed, but may not have time to participate in discussion and editing. <span style="color:Green; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>](]) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::From my perspective the problem is this: I have put far too much time into this minor article, about which I hardly care, and which nobody else is taking care of. Thus I am stuck watching this page, with no means to enforce WP policy, or for that matter basic standards of quality, but to revert—which according to the policy, I am not supposed to do! Only administrative action can resolve the issue definitively, and it is not forthcoming. —]<sub>]]</sub> 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The entire talk page, more or less, is devoted to this issue. Just see the page history and what StephenWolfer is doing. I hope you realize I wasn't asking the administrator to edit any article; I was asking the administrator to do what I cannot: use (or threaten) "force." —]<sub>]]</sub> 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a terminology difference then. What you call an "edit war" we typically call simply a dispute or conflict. When we say "edit war" what we normally mean is a dispute in which the editors only edit back and forth between their preferred versions instead of looking for a more constructive way to resolve things. As for ], clearly the system worked there - you requested protection and it was appropriately granted as there was really nothing else that could be done. But if admins err on the side of requesting more discussion in ''borderline'' cases (which that one was not), it's out of a desire to stay out of the conflict and not choose a side. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk: Capitalism == | |||
| ::::Six months later, the page remains in ruins -- the other editor having reinstated the nonsense, which I had removed. What am I to do but remove it again? Well, I'm not going to bother. The fundamental problem -- the unwillingness (or inability, due to WP policy) of anyone with administrative power to make editorial decisions -- remains. Again, ''the only recourse available'' is an edit war, in exactly the sense of the term that you describe (i.e., reverting without discussion). There simply is no "more constructive way to resolve things." People who will not listen to reason can be dealt with only by force -- either edit warring, or administrative action. You're not willing to do the latter; I'm not willing to do the former -- and so ] will just continue to suck. —]<sub>]]</sub> 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hello--I request that you stop deleting material, because it appears to me that you are doing so with a heavy hand. Barring ] violations or some such, we should definitely err on the side of leaving things in discussion pages. | |||
| :::::If you don't intend to take any part in repairing the article, I won't be bothered either. Frankly, I'm a volunteer: don't try to push me to work on something I'm not necessarily interested in just because I'm an administrator. Administrators are not super-editors: we don't get to make final content decisions or anything, we just have a few more buttons to use. If you actually look through the edit history you'll find a lot of stuff has been clipped out, and many other editors support you. Whoever put the stuff in hasn't been active in months. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| However, it looks like we might not be able to come to agreement. If you aren't willing to stop deleting such material permanently, then how about stopping temporarily while we get administrator input? | |||
| ::::::Hamish last edited the page on June 4 (the 62.64.* IP addresses are his). His section is still in there, though there is an OR tag. He has still not responded to my comments on the talk page from six months ago. Anyway, I'm not trying to get you to do anything -- I'm just reiterating my point. I don't see why you say I "don't intend to take any part in repairing the article" -- as if there were a "part" for me to "take" -- other than (here is the point reiterated) '''continuing an edit war'''. —]<sub>]]</sub> 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks ](]/]) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Criticisms of ] == | |||
| :Like I said, I was just going to delete it once and give up, because I don't care. The things that I deleted the last time were different things than I deleted the first time. Did you see what I deleted this time? I don't think there is any room for controversy with regard to that material -- note that the warning template says off-topic discussion will be deleted. But I certainly don't care enough to draw this out at all. The whole point of deleting material is to save time, not to waste it. —]<sub>]]</sub> 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yo Jemmy, the section you removed was relevant and reliably sourced, and you offered no reason in your edit summary for your action. If you have concerns with the section, would you mind raising them on the article talkpage? Sincerely, <font color="404040">]</font> 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::Thanks--I'll try to get the material back and restore your comments again. ](]/]) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ::Thanks, I appreciate it. <font color="404040">]</font> 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 --> | |||
| Yes, there is so much more we could say about What Is Property. Some of that was written at Property Is Theft. I say the first step is to bring them together. | |||
| I'm glad you brought up ] - you will see some of them italicised (also in the sub-category ]). Click on them, and you will see what I have in mind. I think that is a much better way to go for this case - the slogan does not naturally divide from the book. It's question and answer after all. | |||
| If after this you still think they should be separate, then that's fine. I will withdraw the proposal and we will carry on. | |||
| This Branden business is a waste of time. I see no pressing need to deal with it. Time will be better spent improving What Is Property. Having done some of that, there is a good chance Steve will relent, as he doesn't seem to me to be all that unreasonable. Or else he may lose interest. Or, failing that, I expect it will be easier to convince uninvolved editors or administrators to remove dodgy material from a passable article than it will be to convince them to remove dodgy material from a dodgy article. | |||
| Regards, --] (]) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand what you mean, about the redirect. But "property is theft" is a ], in its own right, unlike the articles in that category that are redirects. Compare ] to ]. The former is a significant slogan; the latter is a mere statement. (There are only three redirects in the slogan category: ], ], and the previously mentioned.) | |||
| :What you say about Steve makes me think that you must be new here. Randites are a hard-headed bunch. It's a genuine cult. They're incapable of listening. A person who can't see why Branden's argument is nonsense is as far from reasonable as it is possible for a person to be. | |||
| :Anyway, while I think I could write a good article for ''What is Property?'', I am really not all that enthused with WP lately. What I've learned from watching disputes here is that any page depends on a ] of good editors to defend it from the constant influx of uninformed idiots and whackos. A lone individual, who is not willing to put in an unlimited amount of time wikilawyering and begging administrators for help, can only expect to see his work destroyed. But hey -- don't let that stop you from writing it yourself! :) —]<sub>]]</sub> 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually I have been around Misplaced Pages many years, on and off, mostly as unregistered IP. Obviously I am not so pessimistic. Admittedly, I am not familiar with Objectivists. Perhaps I will take you up on the What is Property challenge. Anyways it is silly that there was no french version of that article, given that it's french, so I'm starting there. Regards, --] (]) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == You are now blatantly edit-warring == | |||
| How could you possibly think was a mature, constructive step in resolving this dispute? Both SteveWolfer and I had responded to your latest talkpage comment. Ignoring these comments, opting not to bother pursuing ] and reverting SteveWolfer without even bothering to leave an explanatory edit summary is ], and if you continue you know well you are flirting with a block. I've tagged the section as {{tl|disputed}}, and I hope to see no more reverts on this page while consensus is reached. I'll be addressing Steve with this as well. Sincerely, <font color="404040">]</font> 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:09, 17 April 2022
Talk to me baby! —Jemmy
Theodore Kaczynski
I undid your edit because of WP:PUNC. Sorry. Gary King (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's OK, I just did that to get a high quality version to link to from my user page. But, you know, the punctuation is now inconsistent within that section. If you are going to revert my changes, you should also go through the whole section and change all the punctuation so it's the same way everywhere. (Consistency of style is a lot more important than the particular style.) —Jemmytc 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Property is Theft!
Hi! I saw your comments on Coren's talk page, and I looked at part of Talk:Property is theft!. I think that when there's a problem such as you describe at Coren's talk page, that it helps to get more editors involved and having the page on their watchlist so they can revert edits which go against the consensus of other editors. So I tried to participate; but I couldn't find the statement by you about what you're trying to change in the article. (After finding it, of course I'll use my own judgement as to whether I agree with you or not.) I have two suggestions: first, that you make your case clearly and prominently on the article talk page, and somehow make it easy to find (e.g. by posting fewer comments about the behaviour of admins and other editors, so that your post about article content stands out; and perhaps by posting comments with pointers back to your earlier comment); and secondly, that you give me a link to where you've made your case. (Including both what the material is that you would like to change, and the reasons why.) Thanks. By the way, in my opinion there's no use trying to persuade administrators to participate on the grounds that they should because they're administrators. It doesn't work that way. What you need, I think, is more editors; and administrators can choose to edit an article or not, just like anybody else, and are at least as busy as anybody else and there are many articles to choose from. Content policies are enforced by editors, not especially by administrators. Administrators will help by protecting a page etc. when needed, but may not have time to participate in discussion and editing. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The entire talk page, more or less, is devoted to this issue. Just see the page history and what StephenWolfer is doing. I hope you realize I wasn't asking the administrator to edit any article; I was asking the administrator to do what I cannot: use (or threaten) "force." —Jemmytc 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk: Capitalism
Hello--I request that you stop deleting material, because it appears to me that you are doing so with a heavy hand. Barring WP:BLP violations or some such, we should definitely err on the side of leaving things in discussion pages.
However, it looks like we might not be able to come to agreement. If you aren't willing to stop deleting such material permanently, then how about stopping temporarily while we get administrator input?
Thanks CRETOG8(t/c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, I was just going to delete it once and give up, because I don't care. The things that I deleted the last time were different things than I deleted the first time. Did you see what I deleted this time? I don't think there is any room for controversy with regard to that material -- note that the warning template says off-topic discussion will be deleted. But I certainly don't care enough to draw this out at all. The whole point of deleting material is to save time, not to waste it. —Jemmytc 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks--I'll try to get the material back and restore your comments again. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)