| Revision as of 03:32, 13 November 2006 editJtrost (talk | contribs)4,275 editsm archiving← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:34, 13 November 2006 edit undoJtrost (talk | contribs)4,275 editsm correcting linkNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| <p style="background: #00B300; float:right; display:inline; margin: 0; font-family: Tahoma; letter-spacing: 0.1em; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; list-style-type: none; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #006B02; border-top:none;"> | <p style="background: #00B300; float:right; display:inline; margin: 0; font-family: Tahoma; letter-spacing: 0.1em; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; list-style-type: none; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #006B02; border-top:none;"> | ||
| <em>Archives</em><br /> | <em>Archives</em><br /> | ||
| ], Nov 05 - |
], Nov 05 - Oct 06<br /> | ||
| </p> | </p> | ||
| <div style="background:#D6FFDD;border:1px solid #006B02;vertical-align:top;padding: 6px"> | <div style="background:#D6FFDD;border:1px solid #006B02;vertical-align:top;padding: 6px"> | ||
Revision as of 03:34, 13 November 2006
Please leave new messages by clicking the + tab. I will reply to you on your talk page.
Archives
Archive #1, Nov 05 - Oct 06
Do we need to have some arbitration?
You were the only one to object to my edits. You said to take it to the talk page. I have done so. You have not responded there. I also note that you have reverted other edits. So you know, simple reverting without discussion is considered disruptive. With unexplained reverts, it appears that you are going contrary to WP:OWN.
If you request a discussion, then you should discuss. If you do not discuss, there can be no discussion.
I feel that you have been aggressive and unfair. Do we need to go to an arbitration or RfC? --Blue Tie 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm asking that you please be civil and assume good faith, and not jump straight to arbitration when someone disagrees with you. I replied to your comment as soon as I could. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of time to visit Misplaced Pages every day. Regarding the issue at hand, discussing changes to the Lost template is something that is always done regardless of the size of the change. If you take a look through the history there's discussion about just about every change, big and small. You should have discussed adding Lostpedia before adding it, per the status quo. Jtrost ( | C | #) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. If you point to an example of incivility I would like to apologize for it.
- Although you do not have the luxury of time to visit wikipedia every day, you had sufficient time to revert my edit within minutes and without an appropriate comment. A comment to describe why there is an objection is appropriate, not just reverts. Incidentally, contrary to your assertion of seeking discussion first, the idea on wikipedia is not to discuss first and then edit but rather to edit first and then discuss if there is a problem. If you are interested in learning about that as the wikipedia method, I can direct you to a number of comments in policy, guidelines and essays.
- And that was the approach I originally took... in good faith. I specifically requested an explanation, you simply reverted and told ME to take it to the talk page... you never gave one word there to explain the problem. So, while I did originally exercise good faith, I did not see it in return, but rather a somewhat aggressive and confrontational stance.
- I used the word "arbitration" loosely to include RfC or Mediation. I have the feeling that you have taken some sort of special ownership and, even in the paragraph above, you are apparently applying and enforcing your own set of rules to that page, contrary to wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am perfectly willing to exercise good faith if you have not done that, but your actions so far, have been in that direction. If that is the case, (and you would know best how you feel about things) we should not take a great deal of time fiddling with a discussion that will not go anywhere -- just bring in other commentators right away. Do you disagree or do you think a discussion will lead to a resolution without that? Test your own mind and feel out whether you feel inclined to compromise or not -- you are the only person who has objected.
- On that note, I have replied to your reason on the talk page. You reason seems to be unsubstantiated, given that the area of the nav box is "Miscellaneous" and the link was to a wikipedia article. --Blue Tie 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)