User talk:Peter M Dodge/archive oct302006/

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPageArchive

Archived Discussion

Ultima Dragons[edit]

Looks like the Ultima Dragons page got deleted. Ah well, I made it re-direct to Ultima and added a bit about it to that page, but let me know if you want to do something else. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion[edit]

I see you've reverted the science-fiction thingee again. I'll leave it like that -- but will bring in an administrator to try to make you see sense. It just baffles me: WHY do you insist that something clearly wrong is correct? Just because you say so? This is supposed to be an encylopedia of facts, not errors.... Hayford Peirce 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying not to take sides. I'm just trying to maintain the article as is until people can agree what they think is proper. I'd be reverting it to the hyphenated version if people kept trying to change it otherwise. Controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page. Personally I agree with you and don't see why people are touchy about it, but as I said - you should discuss it. I will say one thing though, please remain civil. Your edit summary was not. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Dear editor, I just replaced your new templates with the old ones on Talk:Kosovo. Can you maybe explain why we need new templates. They appear to be just fine. The new ones are a bit too shiny for my taste, they kinda hurt my eyes :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing back, but I already fixed my mistake :). Still, I am interested why you think the current templates are not sufficient? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly I feel that warning templates, especially ones with the kind of implications the Article Probation one has, should stand out more. They're not something you want a niave Wikipedian missing and getting banned :) The yellows a bit bright though, I'd admit. I was trying to match the sign but I don't have a program handy that can spit out some colour hexcodes for me. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been so bold to change the background for User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/ArticleProbation to match the sign. For more HEX colors, this image is a great help: [1]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration etc.[edit]

Thank you for your note on my Talk Page. I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and while I have enjoyed my experience I do admit that I am sometimes frustrated by the 'system' so to speak. For example, a contributor can add what amounts to original research/complete conjecture and it is then incumbent on other editors to actually work with the new material despite it's fundamental flaws. That said, I have a lot to learn and my editing most certainly can approve. Cheers for the heads up. Lochdale 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you need to remember to assume good faith. Some of the editors here are disruptive, but not all of them. Don't let one bad cookie have you going off about the whole system :) The guy was dealt with as harshly as he was for a reason. Just try to keep a cool head about things, and if you find yourself editin out whole sections nwhen you go to edit, ask yourself if you cannot, at the very least, whittle it down to a few, (semi-)indisputable facts. You haven't done anything any novice editor wouldn't've done in your place, so don't get down about it; take it as a learning experience anduse it as a touchstone to improve your editing :)
Again, if you ever need a helping have or just some direction, I'm always here: just ask. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BattleTech[edit]

Stop repeating your claim that I would infringe WP:POINT. I'm not, and you don't have anything to back up that claim. I will regard any further claims without evidence as personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.242.235 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
I ask that you stop spreading lies about me and you feel threatened? In what way does that make sense? You should really, really take a break from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.242.235 (talk • contribs)
You threaten again and again to block me because we disagree on content? This makes sense why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.242.235 (talk • contribs)
You are disrupting a part of the article where consensus has been met. Your edits have been reverted. You continue to revert to your proposed version. This is acting in bad faith and is a violation of WP:3RR. You have been warned, multiple times, by multiple people, that the edits are not constructive. You have persisted. Continuing to persist with these edits when they are not constructive and against consensus may lead to being blocked. I am not trying to threaten you; if it comes off as such then I apologize. I am simply trying to warn you that people who are less inclined to deal with things with dialogue as I am may have already had reason to have you blocked. I am trying to act in good faith by encouraging discussion about it since it is a change that is controversial. For the record, I personally could care whast the points were called or how they were explained, I'm just trying to avert a hostile dispute since one very bad dispute has already happened on that article, and I at least believe your edits are with good intentions.
I may have come off as harsher as I intended to with some of my comments. This is not something I intend, it's simply a by-product of me trying not to get too emotionally attached or engaged with a dispute over an article I have contributed to significantly. (For the record, the Jumpships section is largely by AidanPryde, I believe - my section is the bit about Mynomers, mostly, and if you said it needed fixing, I'd've shaken your hand and commended you :) )
I will say one thing though: the reason I and the other editors have been so resistant to change is that you have not been forthcoming with alternative explanations other than sarcastic comments about redefining terminology for BattleTech or somesuch. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to be serious in your dealings. If you want to make such a controversial change, then I suggest you find compromise, either through talk page discussion, or perhaps, a request for mediation. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard.
"I'm just trying to avert a hostile dispute" Yeah, right.
I addressed the bogus claim about the alternatives you think I have to provide on Talk:BattleTech technology. Please respond there, this here is not about the content dispute. --217.235.241.172
Look, a lot of people would've just written you off as a disruptive anonymous IP editor without a second thought. I'm not one of those people. I'm trying to act in good faith and work towards consensus in edits. You don't have to believe my intentions, but I do ask you to yourself assume good faith. I will readily admit my tone can be misinterpreted and probably was, the internet is like that, and it is something I am trying to improve. However, if you're not going to believe me, I really don't care. What I care about is the integrity of the article. If you have something useful to add, then discuss it there. If you have an objection to myself, then instead of complaining of personal attacks, or posting notices about me (which borders on defamation, but I welcome criticism of my actions so I don't particularly care), how about you actually discuss it with me?
Warning you of the consequences of an action you are taking is NOT a personal attack - it is a warning. Maybe I should not have been so short with you, and explained things more clearly. Then, at least, you would understand what it is you are doing wrong, rather than thinking I am making baseless accusations against you. As I have explained, your edits went against the established consensus of the editors of the article, so they were reverted. At this juncture, you should have discussed it on the talk page, so as to avoid an edit war, at the very least, should have asked "why is my edit being reverted?" This at least would have given everyone an opportunity to discuss the edit before it escalated as it has now.
I don't have anything against you. I don't know you. All you are to me is a number, since you don't have an account, or aren't logged in - how could I be attacking YOU personally? I do have some exceptions to the edits you have made, as I have pointed out already, but to you as a person? I'm completely neutral - I haven't really met you, so how could I be anything else? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about your tone, I don't think I'm particularly thin-skinned. This is about your repeated false statements of fact about me.
I added plenty to the discussion. Read it again if you missed it. --217.235.241.172

For the sake of clarity, and my sanity, please clearly and succintly state what you think I said about you was false. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard --217.235.241.172


That is a link, not a reply stating what you think I said that was false. That said:

  • WP:DISRUPT: No real ambiguity here. We've both been a party to the disruption of the article in the edit war that resulted.
  • WP:POINT: Disrupting an article when your edit is controversial is largely considered to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point - namely your point. You claim the section should be deleted and so delete it. When your edit is reverted, you revert to your version. This is disruptive, and is disruptive to the end of you trying to enforce your point that you believe the section is needless or otherwise unnacceptable.
  • WP:3RR: The Three-Revert Rule is in place to stop the kind of edit wars such as the one we have had over the content on that article. We both have, obviously, broken it.

If there's anything else, please iterate it and I will explain my reasoning. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT are identical, and it seems it does not cover what you think it covers. As I explained before, it is about implementing bad things to prove a point. From that page: "In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the 'proof'."
This is an edit war, but WP:3RR is limited by time. I didn't break it. --217.235.241.172
I think the thing we need to understand here is that an edit war is a disruptive thing. For one, it results in hurt feelings on both sides. I know you don't call yourself thin-skinned, and I don't call myself thin-skinned either, but either way such things result in stress (see my Userpage if you dont believe me :P ). Furthermore, it dissuades other editors from editing the article, for fear of getting involved in something negative. Thirdly, and more mechanically, it ends up leading to edit conflicts - both for the people edit warring, and for a user adding their own legitimate addition to the article. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that. That's still no reason to falsely accuse a fellow editor of breaking rules. WP:POINT and WP:3RR are not some loose love-each-other texts, but pretty precisely defined. Precise enough anyway to see that I broke neither.
(What really gets me in this is that anons are only taken seriously after they use WP:PAIN or something similar.) --217.235.241.172
I took you seriously from the start, if I didn't I would think (knowing myself) I'd've been more like, "aww he's just some guyh whose too lazy to sign up" and just continued reverting your edits, rather than trying to take it to talk where I could try to see what your objections were, to give them further consideration. In fact, it's what ended up stressing me so much, because I've tried to be an advocate for anon editors in the past, voting against the motion to block MSN and AOL anons from editing, as well as speaking up for anons that have been brought before ArbCom without prior dispute resolution. The prevailing attitutes I've encountered on Wikipedia is that if you have a problem with an anon, you just get an admin to block them and it goes away.
That is why I went out of my way to warn you - someone may have gone and done that, had the participants been different, and unfortunately some editors cannot be bothered to weigh the anon's edits or opinions at all. I didn't mean to be accusatory, if anything I was trying, however poorly, to (for lack of a better word) protect you, or warn you, against doing things that I've seen anons get blocked and banned for in the past.
As to the content itself, as I've stated, I'm not against you - the entire point of my reversions was that I know that the consensus was against deleting the sections you were changing, and I feared that (not having the foresight to check your contribs and find that you're an experienced editor, which was my bad) you might end up being a naive Wikipedia user who might get the short end of the stick, because in the past there'd be a very sticky and altogether bad content dispute before, which is what lead to the split of BattleTech Technology from the main article.
I suppose I can't help but see the irony in the fact that I ended up causing what I was trying to prevent, and, again, I'm sorry for it. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_M_Dodge/archive_oct302006/&oldid=390575044"