Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 15
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- What's with all these new links? This looks like a curse. 172 09:49, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
New Imperialism final settlement
The 14-day old page protection has been lifted, and here we go again. The article is reverted to one of the two competing versions hours afterwards.
Since the creation of New Imperialism in December 2002, a stable Revision history (i.e. no edit wars) has consistently been contingent on a ban/block of a single user who has created numerous accounts and/or a page protection of the article.
The edit wars, the ban/block of an overall constructive but stubborn user, and the protection of NI are three major problems. Often, we have temporally kept the lid on 2/3 of these problems at a time. But we have never been able to resolve 3/3 of these problems at once for any significant amount of time in the past 16 months.
However, I've finally figured out a way to get 3/3. A number of active editors and I prefer the 02:29, 14 Mar 2004 version of New Imperialism. User:Lir prefers the 19:38, 28 Mar 2004 version. So, a binding poll on Wikipedia:Current polls could determine whether the 02:29, 14 Mar 2004 or the 19:38, 28 Mar 2004 version is posted.
Poll: which version?
Support 02:29, 14 Mar 2004 version
Support 19:38, 28 Mar 2004 version
I also propose a binding poll on whether or not to permanently disallow edits to NI by either User:Lir or me. Such a decision could be enforced by auto-revert.
No more NI edit wars
Ban 172 from editing New Imperialism
- Support. 172 07:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
ban Lir from editing New Imperialism
For now we ought to consult Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. These two binding polls would work miracles. It would put an end to the 16 months of protections, bans, and edit wars for good.
With the benefit of nearly a year and a half of hindsight, I now realize that the disruptiveness of the edit wars far outweighs all other problems. In the entire history of WP, the NI-related edit wars have been by far more disruptive over time than those related to any of the other 236,185 additional articles. While I'm sure that this claim won't be contested by any of the parties involved for the past 16 months, I'll cite Wikipedia:Most-edited talk pages as strong evidence. One of the twelve archives built into Talk:New Imperialism (Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_9) is listed as #2. 1/12 talk archives is trailed only trailed by Talk:Main Page. The additional eleven archives in Talk:NI and Talk:New Imperialism rank high up on this list as well.
As an aside, I honestly regret having had anything to do with this page (keep in mind that this is coming from the main author). IMHO, the disruptiveness associated with 16 months of edit wars has been far worse than not even having a WP article on the subject. I say this despite evidence of the article series' overall success. NI did fairly well, e.g., in Pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004 (believe it or not, a month w/o major NI edit wars!); only one "History of..." article (History of Europe) ranked higher. It also does well in yahoo or google searches. In searches I've also seen it cited from time to time in other sites (ex) too.
I'll try one more attempt to revert to a version preferred by a number of other contributors, along with these binding poll proposals. If the polls don't work out, then we all may as well give up on the article entirely. No WP article is so important that it warrants so much hassle over an indefinite period. 172 05:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then why are you making such a hassle over it? A year and a half ago, I offered to discuss the entire article -- sentence by sentence! If you aren't interested in discussing it, then go do something else. I don't see any evidence that active users prefer the version you have reverted to. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Our differences stem from matters of presentation and style more or less. So why not let the readers and editors decide which version they prefer? They may vote on your version. And if that's they case, I'll congragulate you and say that the better editor has won. I know you that mean well, and I don't like doing this. But let's give the poll a chance. In the meantime, I favor the version up for the past 14 days. 172 14:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
172, if you can't discuss articles -- you need to leave the wikipedia. In a year and a half, you have never tried to discuss much of anything. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I disagree, but let's not make this personal. I was very careful in my postings to keep my references to you positive or neutral. 172 15:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who cares! Im not interested in your references to me. Im interested in why you are reverting my edits to this article. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I prefer the 14 Mar 2004 version. I went over my concerns regarding your changes on your talk page some weeks ago (7 Feb 2004 and 12 Feb 2004 postings on User talk:Lir. The 18.104.22.168 was posted up for 14 days, raising no objections from anyone but yourself. You also had troubles dealing with Viajero and some other users in a series revert wars taking place between Dec 2003 and the most recent page protection. If you are certain that you a in the right, then regard the idea of a poll as a way of affirming your stance. 172 18:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The only thing I am interested in is discussing the article. You have always refused to discuss this. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have protected the current article as per request. I have no particular view on the merits of this or Lir's version. It is imperative that efforts are made to merge the current article and the other very different version. Please try to discuss this here. Warofdreams 16:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up on the requests made by Lir and me on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. BTW, would you be interested in facilitating a binding poll on Wikipedia:Current polls in order to permanently resolve the 16 months of edit wars on New Imperialism? 172 17:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have resumed editing the page, let the record show that for 16 months 172 has consistently refused to discuss even 1 sentence of this article. I am more than willing to discuss the whole thing. Lirath Q. Pynnor