User talk:Bluefist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In response to your question and an explanation[edit]

Hey! Thanks for your contributions and questions. It's nice to see someone new! Anyway, the reason that I have "annexation" listed first is because from all the sources I've seen, both pro-Russian and pro-Other, it is stated as "annexation", with a vast minority of the world calling it "accession". My thoughts for the article were to reflect the global opinion (for if every side is covered, we can call it "neutral"). From what I can tell, about 80% of the world calls the process an "annexation" (in one of my sources for the title [5], Russia even tells the United States to "...accept the annexation...") with the other 20% calling it "accession". I've also posted this information on User:Moscow Connection's page (he is the strongest resistance) to inform him of this. The title of the article is actually supposed to say annexation, but due to a very tough non-consensus (and I personally think biased) fight from certain people (including M.C.), this was prevented from happening [yet]. Does this clarify things? :D მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

@LiphradicusEpicus: He could claim the same thing if he was in your position. Regardless, I think we need some sort of high level decision about this. Bluefist talk 21:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well now the page is titled "Incorporation of" (this is a title both he and I agreed we would be content with); this seems reasonable, right? :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
@LiphradicusEpicus: I changed the opening paragraph to reflect this. Hopefully @Moscow Connection: and other opponents will find this acceptable. Bluefist talk 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, we're seeing eye-to-eye. I edited the text to be a bit more informative of who calls the process what, check it out! Anyway, thanks so much for your contributions to the page and helping me! I'm off to work now. haha. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

There is not yet a consensus[edit]

[1] I am very disappointed that you jumped the gun to simply take a side and declare a consensus that does not yet exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I changed it back because it was what the article was before you changed it originally. I've given another suggestion on the talk page. Bluefist talk 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mind the changing it back part. If there is no consensus yet, generally we leave what was the most stable version until a consensus is decided. I was just disappointed that after such a short discussion you claimed there was a consensus. I also wanted to mention that the other editor was blocked for edit warring as they did not have a policy or guideline they were adhering to or a logical argument. they just wanted what they wanted. They just wanted the change with no real argument. I have made what I believe is a logical argument but we should at least discuss the change as I have edited it. Wikipedia does not keep content just because it is "long standing". Edits make changes and mine was based on grammar and logical text flow. But, thanks for at least being a reasonable editor. I have an issue with an editor that has been incredibly unreasonable and does not seem to understand many policies and guidelines including NPA.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: It gets me in more trouble than it's worth, but I try to see and argue for both sides of an argument. I'm not an authority so I did that action with extreme caution. I was going to do it last night, but I've learned to wait a day to see more arguments. I'm just going to back out and let others decide. Bluefist talk 03:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you are certainly welcome to continue to debate the issue but I don't blame you for backing away. Pretty smart actually....if I were smart that is what I would do. I'm not that smart. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)