| Revision as of 19:06, 20 April 2016 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →April 2016: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:29, 21 April 2016 edit undo193.60.234.210 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::If someone reverts my edit, they are obliged to explain why. Otherwise, there is no possible basis for a discussion, is there? I see the reverter made a claim that they had received "abuse" from me, while simultaneously calling my edits "silly". But all you can do is patronisingly tell me to accept being called silly. Well no: I don't accept being called silly. If that's common and accepted here, then ] is pointless, isn't it? How about you warn the user to respect other editors, and not to make false claims of "abuse" while they are in the act of insulting people? And if you call people silly and worse yourself, then you too should learn basic respect and not behave as if we're in a school playground. ] (]) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ::If someone reverts my edit, they are obliged to explain why. Otherwise, there is no possible basis for a discussion, is there? I see the reverter made a claim that they had received "abuse" from me, while simultaneously calling my edits "silly". But all you can do is patronisingly tell me to accept being called silly. Well no: I don't accept being called silly. If that's common and accepted here, then ] is pointless, isn't it? How about you warn the user to respect other editors, and not to make false claims of "abuse" while they are in the act of insulting people? And if you call people silly and worse yourself, then you too should learn basic respect and not behave as if we're in a school playground. ] (]) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::If you are the one changing from the status quo, and they revert, then YOU need to take to the talk page and explain the edit. If after a few days no one objects, it is pretty reasonable to put it back in. If they revert you then, I would say they are the problem and should have participated on the talk page. That isn't what happened here, however. ] - ] 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | :::If you are the one changing from the status quo, and they revert, then YOU need to take to the talk page and explain the edit. If after a few days no one objects, it is pretty reasonable to put it back in. If they revert you then, I would say they are the problem and should have participated on the talk page. That isn't what happened here, however. ] - ] 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::What an obnoxious little jerk you are, Dennis. Read ], would you? If someone can't be bothered to explain why they reverted, it's very unlikely they had a good reason to actually revert. Given that he said "Please refrain from changing genres" in his bizarre message above, perhaps you might tell me what "genre" I changed. Alternatively, if you should realise that the message was nonsensical and the reverting purely disruptive, then have a word with the editor concerned. ] (]) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] Anonymous users from this IP address have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. —]] 16:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)</p></div> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] Anonymous users from this IP address have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. —]] 16:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)</p></div> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| How utterly ridiculous. And of course there are no warnings or even the vaguest reprimand for the person who made personal attacks and false claims, and reverted edits without bothering to explain why. ] (]) 16:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | How utterly ridiculous. And of course there are no warnings or even the vaguest reprimand for the person who made personal attacks and false claims, and reverted edits without bothering to explain why. ] (]) 16:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| *I explained it all above, and linked to BRD, our gold standard when it comes to disputes. I don't yell and wag my finger with my warning, but you had plenty of notice. If you make a change from the status quo and others object, the onus is on you to explain, as it is assumed the status quo is the "consensus view", else it wouldn't be the status quo. These were small changes, not worthy of warring over, but worthy of discussion. ] - ] 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | *I explained it all above, and linked to BRD, our gold standard when it comes to disputes. I don't yell and wag my finger with my warning, but you had plenty of notice. If you make a change from the status quo and others object, the onus is on you to explain, as it is assumed the status quo is the "consensus view", else it wouldn't be the status quo. These were small changes, not worthy of warring over, but worthy of discussion. ] - ] 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::Funny, when I look at that page, it doesn't say "this is the gold standard when it comes to disputes". It says "This essay is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline". It also says it's "an optional method of reaching consensus". It also says "BRD is ... not a process that you can require other editors to follow". It also says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". It also says "BRD is never a reason for reverting". It also says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". Now, if someone had a valid objection to my edits, they would have ], wouldn't they? The onus is on you, in fact, when reverting, to explain why you felt it necessary to destroy my work. | |||
| ::If you were anything other than an obnoxious little jerk (duck's back, Dennis; think of the duck's back), then, when faced with an editor who reverted my edit for no reason, made false accusations about me, and plainly misunderstood what[REDACTED] policy was, you'd have explained to him 1. that if he reverts edits, he should explain why; 2. that nothing about my edits in any way contravened Misplaced Pages policy; 3. that personal attacks are not acceptable. But you preferred to encourage his disruptive behaviour and attack me, didn't you? ] (]) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:29, 21 April 2016
April 2016
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Wow! signal, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Genres? What are you talking about? And why did you disruptively revert all my recent edits, while making personal attacks? 193.60.234.209 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, they are not "personal attacks". You have deleted content without stating any reason, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest you use the article Talk page(s) to explain your "edits". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, calling my edits "silly" is a personal attack. No, my edits are not against any Misplaced Pages policy. Reverting without explanation, however, is highly disruptive. Your comments about genres are nonsensical, so if you have an actual reason to revert, you should state it now, or go away. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop now and explain your edits, per Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I think either version is ok, although my opinion is that removing famous is better, but keeping "the name given" is better. The best place to deal with this is the talk page. Mr 193, I will just say that when a part of an article has been established and you boldly change it (something we welcome), but is later reverted back, WP:BRD put the burden on you to discuss it first on the talk page. To me, these are minor changes and nothing worth getting excited about, but should be discussed on the article talk page in a calm matter. As for personal attacks, we all use "silly" or worse words sometimes, just let it roll off your back like water on a duck. I'm an admin here, and I know I say worse regularly. Editing is rough and tumble sometimes, you just have to go with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- If someone reverts my edit, they are obliged to explain why. Otherwise, there is no possible basis for a discussion, is there? I see the reverter made a claim that they had received "abuse" from me, while simultaneously calling my edits "silly". But all you can do is patronisingly tell me to accept being called silly. Well no: I don't accept being called silly. If that's common and accepted here, then WP:NPA is pointless, isn't it? How about you warn the user to respect other editors, and not to make false claims of "abuse" while they are in the act of insulting people? And if you call people silly and worse yourself, then you too should learn basic respect and not behave as if we're in a school playground. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you are the one changing from the status quo, and they revert, then YOU need to take to the talk page and explain the edit. If after a few days no one objects, it is pretty reasonable to put it back in. If they revert you then, I would say they are the problem and should have participated on the talk page. That isn't what happened here, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- What an obnoxious little jerk you are, Dennis. Read WP:REVEXP, would you? If someone can't be bothered to explain why they reverted, it's very unlikely they had a good reason to actually revert. Given that he said "Please refrain from changing genres" in his bizarre message above, perhaps you might tell me what "genre" I changed. Alternatively, if you should realise that the message was nonsensical and the reverting purely disruptive, then have a word with the editor concerned. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you are the one changing from the status quo, and they revert, then YOU need to take to the talk page and explain the edit. If after a few days no one objects, it is pretty reasonable to put it back in. If they revert you then, I would say they are the problem and should have participated on the talk page. That isn't what happened here, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- If someone reverts my edit, they are obliged to explain why. Otherwise, there is no possible basis for a discussion, is there? I see the reverter made a claim that they had received "abuse" from me, while simultaneously calling my edits "silly". But all you can do is patronisingly tell me to accept being called silly. Well no: I don't accept being called silly. If that's common and accepted here, then WP:NPA is pointless, isn't it? How about you warn the user to respect other editors, and not to make false claims of "abuse" while they are in the act of insulting people? And if you call people silly and worse yourself, then you too should learn basic respect and not behave as if we're in a school playground. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —SMALLJIM 16:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
How utterly ridiculous. And of course there are no warnings or even the vaguest reprimand for the person who made personal attacks and false claims, and reverted edits without bothering to explain why. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I explained it all above, and linked to BRD, our gold standard when it comes to disputes. I don't yell and wag my finger with my warning, but you had plenty of notice. If you make a change from the status quo and others object, the onus is on you to explain, as it is assumed the status quo is the "consensus view", else it wouldn't be the status quo. These were small changes, not worthy of warring over, but worthy of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Funny, when I look at that page, it doesn't say "this is the gold standard when it comes to disputes". It says "This essay is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline". It also says it's "an optional method of reaching consensus". It also says "BRD is ... not a process that you can require other editors to follow". It also says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". It also says "BRD is never a reason for reverting". It also says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". Now, if someone had a valid objection to my edits, they would have stated it in their edit summary, wouldn't they? The onus is on you, in fact, when reverting, to explain why you felt it necessary to destroy my work.
- If you were anything other than an obnoxious little jerk (duck's back, Dennis; think of the duck's back), then, when faced with an editor who reverted my edit for no reason, made false accusations about me, and plainly misunderstood what[REDACTED] policy was, you'd have explained to him 1. that if he reverts edits, he should explain why; 2. that nothing about my edits in any way contravened Misplaced Pages policy; 3. that personal attacks are not acceptable. But you preferred to encourage his disruptive behaviour and attack me, didn't you? 193.60.234.210 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)