User talk:Walky-talky
Edits on SUCI Page[edit]
Shibdas Ghosh is the founder of SUCI and that preceeds his achievements as a leader former leader of the RSP. Infact that too is not factual, he was a member of Anusilan Samiti from which RSP and SUCI has their origin. However, because you have a reference of it, I too agree that it can be there. But I will disagree with your style of edits to make his contributions sound irrelevant--Bctcanji (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This version is agreeable. I will look for third party references to his publications.--Bctcanji (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied.[[1]]Walky-talky (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
lead[edit]
I'm re-inserting into the lead the bit about the Israel offering to deliver the Gaza aid. There is consensus in the talk section that this should be included and the deletion appears to be accidental when you removed some other information (which is also currently under discussion in the talk section). I encourage you to contribute your thoughts here though Zuchinni one (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
lede[edit]
- Hi. A couple of things. 1) Feel free to clarify further the sentence if you like (once you are past the 1RR time period), but removing it was not perhaps the most helpful approach. Clearly, the reason for the flotilla is important. And its not obvious without mention. And the fact that it is mentioned elsewhwere in the article is not reason to remove it -- the lede is meant to be a summary. Everything in it should be mentioned elsewhere. 2) You somehow seem familiar. Have we met before, perhaps with you editing under another user name? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- replied in the article talk page. Walky-talky (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reminder: Discretionary sanctions[edit]
This is just a reminder that the article Gaza flotilla raid is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, which prohibits edit warring.
I appreciate that you did bring it up on the talk page, and I personally prefer your version, but I feel I need to give you the same warning that I gave to IANVS. I know that you are generally well-intended, and I'm confident that you will be more cautious in the future. Please wait till the discussion reaches a conclusion. — Sebastian 07:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC), amended 07:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for withdrawing your earlier template message. I have no interest in edit warring. The 1RR, as I understand, says "do not make more than one revert (undo a certain change made by one or more editors in the past) within 24 hours". I think I made only one revert and then raised the violation of 1RR by IANVS in the talk page. I suppose not all edits are reverts ( there are people following the 0RR; please tell me if I am wrong. I would also like to ask you ( since I am not an expert edit warrior) whether the 1RR applies to the article or the specific edits (that is if, i made a revert in one section, can I make another revert in another section within 24 hours) . Walky-talky (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is something I don't understand myself. You might expect that, as an admin, I should know that. But I've never patrolled pages on which 1RR was in place; instead, I have been very busy patrolling pages that used a variant, "Don't re-revert", which makes much more sense to me. 1RR is a weird rule - I just learned that I probably violated it myself. I'm tired now and have to leave. But I had been thinking of asking about this on WT:1RR or WT:3RR; If you'd like to do that, it would help me, too. — Sebastian 08:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- And what do I see, I am reminded of the sanction even though I did not edit war, someone reverted me, knowingly violating 1:RR, but is not reverted nor blocked, not even warned. Walky-talky (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No! Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". You did override IANVS' version twice. While 1RR is unfortunately worded in such a way as to permit it, it's still edit warring. — Sebastian 08:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I override IANVS' version twice? Can you show the diffs?
- And what do I see, I am reminded of the sanction even though I did not edit war, someone reverted me, knowingly violating 1:RR, but is not reverted nor blocked, not even warned. Walky-talky (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is something I don't understand myself. You might expect that, as an admin, I should know that. But I've never patrolled pages on which 1RR was in place; instead, I have been very busy patrolling pages that used a variant, "Don't re-revert", which makes much more sense to me. 1RR is a weird rule - I just learned that I probably violated it myself. I'm tired now and have to leave. But I had been thinking of asking about this on WT:1RR or WT:3RR; If you'd like to do that, it would help me, too. — Sebastian 08:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You know, it's really a pity that you're reacting so testily. Just a moment ago, I really liked you, and when I opened up to you, all I got was a sarcastic reply. — Sebastian 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am not reacting testily; I am just frustrated a bit. I don't believe I have violated 1RR. To be sure I asked and you said you are not sure of it. Later you said I did edit war. I just want to understand whether I violated 1RR or not so that I wont repeat the same. The diffs [1] and [2] above are the same; my first edit on that section where I expanded the section a bit. I was not reverting IANVS' version. Then I was reverted and I reverted back after explaining the reasons in the talk page. That is the one ( and only one) revert I made. Well I have no interest in dragging this any more, but please tell me if I am wrong. Walky-talky (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- From the above discussion, it seems that your approach to Wikipedia is fundamentally mistaken. Wikipedia is not a game in which each side tries to max out the rules; it is a collaboration project, which depends on a spirit of collaboration. The rules are only the attempt to give people a framework; this is expressed by such policies as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy , and it is why abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles is frowned upon. Repeatedly overriding the edits of another editor you disagree with, as you did, clearly violates the spirit of collaboration. You can get blocked for that. — Sebastian 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am not reacting testily; I am just frustrated a bit. I don't believe I have violated 1RR. To be sure I asked and you said you are not sure of it. Later you said I did edit war. I just want to understand whether I violated 1RR or not so that I wont repeat the same. The diffs [1] and [2] above are the same; my first edit on that section where I expanded the section a bit. I was not reverting IANVS' version. Then I was reverted and I reverted back after explaining the reasons in the talk page. That is the one ( and only one) revert I made. Well I have no interest in dragging this any more, but please tell me if I am wrong. Walky-talky (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You know, it's really a pity that you're reacting so testily. Just a moment ago, I really liked you, and when I opened up to you, all I got was a sarcastic reply. — Sebastian 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is going too far; when did I repeatedly override the edits of another editor. I have stated this before; I am repeating this; I reverted only once; most of my edits have been on the talk page; tell me if I am wrong; show me the diff's; I will revert myself.Walky-talky (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)