User talk:Born2cycle

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Herman Cain edit warring

Just an FYI in case you did not realize, you reverted three times in exactly two hours on Herman Cain, all without discussing your reverts on the talk page (which you are doing now, I'll be replying there after this). That does not violate the letter of WP:3RR, but it is a form of edit warring and would already be blockable since 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I have no interest in getting you blocked (and of course would not do so myself as I'm involved), but if anyone comes by to revert you (I will not for now, discussion is preferred) I strongly advise you to refrain from reverting to your preferred version yet again.

Two other editors have objected to the length of the material you want to keep in and that means you need to work with them rather than edit warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My username is Born2cycle. Please check the talk page again before you say I reverted without discussion.

My first revert was at 21:09 and that was about whether the allegations belonged at all based on being "unprovable". Arzel (talk · contribs) removed all of the material with edit summary "Unprovable allegations have no place here." [1]. I reverted that with an explanatory edit summary "they have sworn affidavits from witnesses who corroborate the story - it's not unprovable" and followed up on the Talk page immediately at 21:13 with further explanation[2]. This was not challenged by anyone, including not by you, even though 30 minutes later at 21:42 you went and removed much of this content [3]. Your edit summary said, "...see talk", but you didn't do that yourself!

In fact, two minutes prior to your content removal, at 21:40, Nandt1 (talk · contribs) contributed to that discussion, noting that BLP explicitly provides for adding exactly such material, as long as it is properly cited [4]. I found that to be ironic considering your content removal, discussed this on the talk page accordingly at 21:47, [5], and then reverted your removal[6], at 21:48, again noting the ongoing discussion on the talk page in the edit summary in which you were not participating.

Then, at 21:53, you finally did engage on the talk page[7], though still ignoring everything I had written, and, at 21:56, you again removed this material [8], with an edit summary that said, "please see the section I started on the talk page and engage there before re-adding.". Okay, fine. Ignore everything I'd already discussed at 21:13 and 21:47 and start a new section. So I engaged there too, at 22:57[9], and then did a 3rd revert at 23:06 in accordance with what I explained there[10]. I see now that you did, finally, at 23:36[11], respond to something I wrote on the talk page, and I'll address that there too, but even that was after you posted this comment here at 23:22[12].

So I'm perplexed at your above comment... "all without discussing your reverts"! I discussed ALL of my reverts! It was you who was ignoring the talk page while you were reverting! --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously know your username, as I am on your user talk page. Surely you realize that.

Let me come back to why I come here, namely your edit warring, which you pointedly do not admit to (I did notice that!). Here are the three edits I am talking about that you did [13] [14] [15]. Those are all straight reverts and you did three in 2 hours. Had you done one more it would have been a 3RR violation, hence my warning, though even with those three you are clearly edit warring. This is a simple fact and it is also a problem and something for which you can be blocked.

As to the talk page, I missed your 5:47 comment which came as I was typing my first comment, which I made immediately after the first edit. My point was slightly different than the preceding discussion so I started a new section explaining my edit which shortened the text--nothing nefarious there, people start new sections all the time as you no doubt know, and my edit summary mentioned the talk page as the place to go for further explanation of the edit.

But that's very much a side issue and I realize now I should not have even brought up the talk page issue without looking at it more closely. It's good that you are engaging on the talk page, but it does not give you license to make three reversion in two hours, reverting two editors as you do so. That is my point, and I hope you can simply accept that you cannot do that in the future, and that further reverting in a 24 hour period will likely result in a block.

I'm not really interested in debating this with you as the policy is quite cut and dried, as are your three reverts, I'm simply giving you a warning about edit warring, so I hope we can leave it there and instead discuss the content issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I was edit warring. Edit warring "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I didn't do that, as explained above.

Again, the first revert was explained, and no one, including you, disagreed, so that was a resolved issue. I did my best to engage in discussion, but you reverted my edit without discussion. When another editor noted how BLP explicitly supported inclusion of the material in question, and no one, including you, disputed that, I again edited accordingly.

But, yeah, with respect to 3RR, I'm technically on the edge. I guess I'm willing to risk that in trying to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers, and in compliance with everything supported by broad consensus. Are you one of those wiki lawyers? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were edit warring. You were not "trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion," you were reverting changes that you did not like, and three times you overrode the (very related) changes of two other editors. The fact that you said things on the talk page during this time is not evidence of trying to resolve the disagreement--in order for that to be true you would also have to stop reverting, not just say something and then revert.

So, for example, I made one change to the article which cut down on the length and combined sections (note: this was not a revert, e.g. a simple "undo" of the last edit, it was a new edit that altered the existing text). I then left a note on the talk page, but while doing that you had already reverted. My one revert, at 5:56, was in part in the hopes that it would bring you to respond to my comment on the talk page, which you have. I have not reverted since then and am now discussing with you. Had you, for example, refrained from your 7:06 edit (which came after a talk page comment that basically said "my way is correct") and instead waited for a continued dialogue, you would not, to my mind, have been edit warring.

The key here is for all concerned parties to leave off reverting--even if it's on the "wrong" version, which it always is for someone--and talk about it. I did that after just one revert, but you reverted my edits twice, after having reverted another editor who made a similar change just before that. That's edit warring.

Finally, your statement that you're willing to risk violating a policy "to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers" is concerning. Your thoughts on what make the article better and my thoughts on that (and a third, fourth, and fifth persons) very often differ. We have to work together to find a consensus, which usually means compromise. Implicit in your comment is an "I know what's best, and I'll battle and break the rules if I have to in order to make the encyclopedia the way it should be." That's also a problem, and I hope you can see why and in general take on board these comments going forward. As to this specific issue I'll consider the matter closed for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you reverted without any discussion whatsoever. I did not. Had you joined me in the ongoing discussion on the talk page instead of editing in the first place, that would have been better. But whatever, you decided to edit; that's fine. But since you Boldly edited without engaging in the discussion, I Reverted and continued discussion, per BRD. But you didn't D, you reverted my revert! What's up with that? And you had the gall to suggest to me that engage on the talk page! Also, I still would not have reverted your edit, except that now there was another editor who apparently agreed with inclusion of the material you were removing, and you were still not engaging on the talk page.

Anyway, WP is much much bigger than my opinion or your opinion. What I think is best or what you think is best or what any one editor thinks is best is immaterial. What matters is what the community at large agrees is best. That's true consensus.

Now, what does the community at large think is best in this situation, or in any particular situation? Well, our best indicator is what has been written in policy and guidelines, which are supposed to reflect broad consensus. In this case we have what BLP, UNDUE, NPOV, etc. actually say.

So, if you can show me (not here, but at the article talk page) how broad consensus - as reflected in any of these relevant policies and guidelines - indicates this section should be culled, then we'll have something useful and productive to talk about and work out. But if you want to base the removal of content sourced in RS on personal taste or opinion, it's going to be very difficult to find any common ground whatsoever, much less actually come to an agreement. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Boldly--and it weren't that bold--making a change to something is completely allowable, and when it's followed up with a lengthy comment, as I did, it's more than okay. You reverted without responding to that comment, it was your second revert (the previous having been of an edit like mine), and then you reverted a third time after replying to my comment and not even bothering to wait for a reply. In total, you made three reverts while leaving exactly one note for one of the people you were reverting on the talk page, but without waiting for a response. That's not discussing on the talk page, that's reverting and typing on the talk page. Once you responded to the initial talk page comment I made, I reverted no more, and had only reverted once, which is an example of avoiding edit warring. I can't explain the difference any better than that.

If it helps, feel free to ask any admin at random to read through the above discussion and let you know if what you were doing is considered edit warring. Obviously I'm not getting through to you and I've already spent too much time arguing about something that shouldn't need this much explanation. Just don't be surprised if you run into trouble with some similar situation in the future--3 reverts in two hours when the dispute is a basic content matter is a problem, basically every single time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion

About this: Rather than working from the brief summary at WP:Consensus, it might make more sense to grab the complete text from the policy on article titles, which you'll find in the middle of WP:TITLECHANGES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the articles...

As mentioned in the move discussions, Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, Mega-CD, List of Sega Mega Drive games, List of Sega Mega-CD games and Sega Multi-Mega may need to be changed to be inline with the Sega Genesis article, per previous changes. Such as [16] and [17]--SexyKick 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT...

ever redact another user's comments on a talk page where they are not clearly vandalism. Fair criticism is clearly not that. A repeat of that will see you at WP:ANI very, very, quickly indeed. Black Kite (t) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)