Jump to content

User talk:EyeSerene: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 62: Line 62:


Hi EyeSerene,
Hi EyeSerene,
Hope your exams went well! Tao 2911 is AGAIN changing agreed upon wording on controversial paragraph AFTER consensus was reached and agreed. This is the second time this has occurred in two weeks.We just spent the last two weeks on this issue and now after consensus he changes wording again. His logic is "minor word edit". But two controversial issues , number of lawsuits and timing or dates of those lawsuits. All this is sourced via newspapers. I am between a rock and a hard place. Really trying to work with opposing views. Sticking with wiki policy and reasoning and I think that there is evidence of that. Is it still wiki policy that changes in an article should be first discussed in in Discussion to achieve consensus? If this is no longer the policy, then how does one counter information put in the article without consensus. If one reverts the language not agreed to by another editor then it can be called "edit waring" So what is the process here? Mediation is tough. Can one request mediation on single issues. Seems like Tao is just freely editing with no discussion, putting edit and reasoning in at same time. Also sarcastic innuendos as to suggest things about other editors continues. We were so close and even other pro-Da editor said the same and then... more edits without consensus occur from Tao with no possibility to come to consensus. Suggestions.
Hope your exams went well! Tao 2911 is AGAIN changing agreed upon wording on controversial paragraph AFTER consensus was reached and agreed. This is the second time this has occurred in two weeks.We just spent the last two weeks on this issue and now after consensus he changes wording again. His logic is "minor word edit". But two controversial issues , number of lawsuits and timing or dates of those lawsuits. All this is sourced via newspapers.So we agreed to allow two sources which seemed in some conflict. One from the Washington Post and the other a writer who was critical of Adi Da. I am between a rock and a hard place. Really trying to work with opposing views. Sticking with wiki policy and reasoning and I think that there is evidence of that. Is it still wiki policy that changes in an article should be first discussed in in Discussion to achieve consensus? If this is no longer the policy, then how does one counter information put in the article without consensus. If one reverts the language not agreed to by another editor then it can be called "edit waring" So what is the process here? Mediation is tough. Can one request mediation on single issues. Seems like Tao is just freely editing with no discussion, putting edit and reasoning in at same time. Also sarcastic innuendos as to suggest things about other editors continues. We were so close and even other pro-Da editor said the same and then... more edits after and also before consensus occur from Tao with no possibility to come to consensus. Suggestions.


Thank for guidance on this.[[User:Jason Riverdale|Jason Riverdale]] ([[User talk:Jason Riverdale|talk]]) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank for guidance on this.[[User:Jason Riverdale|Jason Riverdale]] ([[User talk:Jason Riverdale|talk]]) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:41, 18 June 2010

Danke

Just found out whats going on behind the scenes - ill try not to screw up lol!

You're welcome :) EyeSerenetalk 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding reviewer/autoreviewer rights to my profile...I saw it on my watchlist at the same time as the MILHIST discussion on pending changes (which I had not previously heard of, despite hanging out in quite a few areas of WP, so thanks for noting it there). I appreciate your unprompted recognition of me as a 'trusted user'. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Didn't even know I had a reputation, much less one so stellar that I could be trusted by you! :D Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I had no idea this was finally getting rolled out. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problem. I only found out about this yesterday myself - I realise it's just a trial for now and may never go any further, but my main concern was that established editors shouldn't be inconvenienced. If you know anyone that should have their rights updated, please let me know :) EyeSerenetalk 11:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From me too. I had no idea about this until the other night when I found myself granted some new strange power.... Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EyeSerene for an explanation. I responded to all editor concerns, but obviously not good enough to get a support for A-class. Since you are objective in this case, can you point what was editors main concern? Copyediting, or something else? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)

Hi

I have further expanded the British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II) article and wondered if you had time to give it a going over again if no one else does in the next couple of hours as I want to start on the "Action" section next

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Da page

Hi EyeSerene, Hope your exams went well! Tao 2911 is AGAIN changing agreed upon wording on controversial paragraph AFTER consensus was reached and agreed. This is the second time this has occurred in two weeks.We just spent the last two weeks on this issue and now after consensus he changes wording again. His logic is "minor word edit". But two controversial issues , number of lawsuits and timing or dates of those lawsuits. All this is sourced via newspapers.So we agreed to allow two sources which seemed in some conflict. One from the Washington Post and the other a writer who was critical of Adi Da. I am between a rock and a hard place. Really trying to work with opposing views. Sticking with wiki policy and reasoning and I think that there is evidence of that. Is it still wiki policy that changes in an article should be first discussed in in Discussion to achieve consensus? If this is no longer the policy, then how does one counter information put in the article without consensus. If one reverts the language not agreed to by another editor then it can be called "edit waring" So what is the process here? Mediation is tough. Can one request mediation on single issues. Seems like Tao is just freely editing with no discussion, putting edit and reasoning in at same time. Also sarcastic innuendos as to suggest things about other editors continues. We were so close and even other pro-Da editor said the same and then... more edits after and also before consensus occur from Tao with no possibility to come to consensus. Suggestions.

Thank for guidance on this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]