This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skyring (talk | contribs) at 09:05, 14 October 2013 (→October 2013). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:05, 14 October 2013 by Skyring (talk | contribs) (→October 2013)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
October 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lynx (spacecraft). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. W. D. Graham 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Edits like this are not helping the situation. You need to stop right now and discuss the matter before you take it any further. Also don't give the edit summary "unsourced" when removing material which is clearly cited - blatantly lying in edit summaries won't help your case. This is your final warning, if you continue to edit disruptively, by removing sourced information, making disputed edits without first discussing them and posting false edit summaries, you will be blocked from editing. --W. D. Graham 15:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Give over. Click the link I removed - it comes up: "WE ARE SORRY, THE PAGE YOU REQUESTED CANNOT BE FOUND." That looks pretty unsourced to me. What do you reckon? --Pete (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then flag it as a dead link, or better still find an archived version of it. In any case my primary point here was that you were continuing to edit in support of your side of the dispute, which is in of itself disruptive editing, so my warning still stands. I'd also suggest that you consider reverting your own edits pending the outcome of the discussion as a sign of good faith - otherwise an uninvolved administrator would be perfectly within their rights to block you anyway for edit warring in this manner. Discuss the problem on the talk page, come to an agreement or if you cannot do so then go through dispute resolution, but in disputes like this the article should be left alone until consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now, it seems to me that your position on this is hardly neutral. Where is your warning to N2e on edit-warring? Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is that he's stopped making disputed changes to the article, backed off, acknowledged the problem and asked for uninvolved input. You've just continued to push your position in the article with another round of reverts. You continued to make the same sort of edits that had started the dispute, which is why I warned you. If he continues to revert then I will warn him, but I find it unlikely that he will act in this way. --W. D. Graham 15:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do beg your pardon, but you are incorrect. My last revert was several minutes before your first contribution here and my last edit was to remove unsourced material as noted above - something you didn't check. The only reason N2e stopped editing was because he had reached 3RR. I've also called for more eyes, and I'm exploring wikipolicy - such as WP:RS to get more editors involved. Please check your facts before making unwarranted criticisms. --Pete (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is that he's stopped making disputed changes to the article, backed off, acknowledged the problem and asked for uninvolved input. You've just continued to push your position in the article with another round of reverts. You continued to make the same sort of edits that had started the dispute, which is why I warned you. If he continues to revert then I will warn him, but I find it unlikely that he will act in this way. --W. D. Graham 15:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now, it seems to me that your position on this is hardly neutral. Where is your warning to N2e on edit-warring? Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then flag it as a dead link, or better still find an archived version of it. In any case my primary point here was that you were continuing to edit in support of your side of the dispute, which is in of itself disruptive editing, so my warning still stands. I'd also suggest that you consider reverting your own edits pending the outcome of the discussion as a sign of good faith - otherwise an uninvolved administrator would be perfectly within their rights to block you anyway for edit warring in this manner. Discuss the problem on the talk page, come to an agreement or if you cannot do so then go through dispute resolution, but in disputes like this the article should be left alone until consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Give over. Click the link I removed - it comes up: "WE ARE SORRY, THE PAGE YOU REQUESTED CANNOT BE FOUND." That looks pretty unsourced to me. What do you reckon? --Pete (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Having checked the logs, your last revert occurred while I was writing my comment on the talk page, but still after N2e's comment on WT:SPACEFLIGHT. In any case it is still a tu quoque argument - two wrongs don't make a right, and your conduct since then has been, at best, questionable. I don't know who is right from a factual standpoint - this is an area of spaceflight that I don't really follow which is why I thought I would be able to offer some neutral input. Whether your edit came before my involvement or not doesn't matter - it was still wrong for you to revert again. You also shouldn't be nominating pages for deletion to make a point, just because you disagree with N2e. Instead of trying to start discussions all over the place, please participate in the one which already exists, and try to find some common ground to work from. --W. D. Graham 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I've noted, you should check your facts. I was following good advice to take the article to WP:NOTABILITY. The noticeboard there has gone and I was directed on to AfD. This is Wikiprocess in action. We'll get more editors looking at the question and this is a good thing, yeah? I can't win with you - you chip me for engaging in a private dispute and when I take it wider, you have a go at me for that. I'm making no secret of my view of the article as a puff piece that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages - please don't blame me for following through on my expressed position. Again, be fair. Please.--Pete (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm giving you every benefit of the doubt here - if I wasn't I'd have already taken this to ANI. You've summed up the key problem quite nicely - I'm making no secret of my view of the article as a puff piece that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages - please don't blame me for following through on my expressed position. That is your opinion. Others have different opinions, which is why it is necessary to discuss things and find consensus. Since others don't agree with your view, if you are "following through on expressed position" without waiting for consensus to emerge, that is the very definition of disruptive editing. You need to do as N2e has, back off and discuss the problem rather than edit warring or having a knee-jerk reaction and starting AfDs because you don't agree with the status quo. --W. D. Graham 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think at this point you may be deliberately baiting me. You are in error on many of your statements. You aren't listening to me. If you are fair dinkum, take a moment to follow up on what I say. Check the links. When I say something clearly several times and you aren't following it, that's not a good look. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pete, everybody is entitled to their opinion. If you disagree then fair enough, but just saying I'm wrong and I'm "deliberately baiting" you without providing any real evidence or explanation to back that up is little more than a personal attack. It doesn't really foster cooperation - also please note that I'm not even involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion, but you're too busy trying to attack my position to engage. I have looked already looked into your position several times, but since you have provided no positive evidence whatsoever to support it, I can only conclude that it has no merit. If you want to make a change you need to provide proof, you can't just go in making accusations and saying that you don't like it. That's just not how this site works. --W. D. Graham 08:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- There you go again. Look, just about every time you have said something here - or anywhere else - you've gotten something wrong. Something that is going to grate with me, because I am going to pick up on it. Please stop it.
- Having said that, I'm intrigued as to what you think my position might be, because I've certainly said it plainly enough several times. Do you want to have a swing at it and then we can continue, hopefully coöperatively, to find some common ground? --Pete (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pete, everybody is entitled to their opinion. If you disagree then fair enough, but just saying I'm wrong and I'm "deliberately baiting" you without providing any real evidence or explanation to back that up is little more than a personal attack. It doesn't really foster cooperation - also please note that I'm not even involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion, but you're too busy trying to attack my position to engage. I have looked already looked into your position several times, but since you have provided no positive evidence whatsoever to support it, I can only conclude that it has no merit. If you want to make a change you need to provide proof, you can't just go in making accusations and saying that you don't like it. That's just not how this site works. --W. D. Graham 08:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think at this point you may be deliberately baiting me. You are in error on many of your statements. You aren't listening to me. If you are fair dinkum, take a moment to follow up on what I say. Check the links. When I say something clearly several times and you aren't following it, that's not a good look. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm giving you every benefit of the doubt here - if I wasn't I'd have already taken this to ANI. You've summed up the key problem quite nicely - I'm making no secret of my view of the article as a puff piece that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages - please don't blame me for following through on my expressed position. That is your opinion. Others have different opinions, which is why it is necessary to discuss things and find consensus. Since others don't agree with your view, if you are "following through on expressed position" without waiting for consensus to emerge, that is the very definition of disruptive editing. You need to do as N2e has, back off and discuss the problem rather than edit warring or having a knee-jerk reaction and starting AfDs because you don't agree with the status quo. --W. D. Graham 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)