User talk:Combatentropy

Welcome!

Hello, Combatentropy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ruud 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Tacit Knowledge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've dumbed it down not improved it - happy to work with you on talk page but pending agreement WP:BRD applies. You need to address the langauge of your edit summaries as well. Suggesting that a long-standing editor with a clean track record as to make make a case as to why, having the temerity to not agree with you, is disruptive is really not conducive to collaborative behaviour. The assertion that you have authority by way of your profession is also not allowed on Wikipedia -----Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a notice of edit warring on my talk page but not on yours? I can understand if an editor reverts an edit without explanation if someone vandalizes a page, posting something like "Taylor Swift is awesome!" But you have a track record of reverting reasonable edits with dismissive comments. So I think you also "need to address the langauge of your edit summaries." In fact, I find it hard to believe that you would say that to me when your own edit summaries are right beside mine staring back at you. I called your behavior Disruptive editing, because that's what the Wikipedia policy by that name describes. Your behavior also is forbidden in another article, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Combatentropy (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were reverting against the established text. On my first revert, I gave you a link to WP:BRD but you didn't read it or ignored it so you got the notice. So you were not bitten until you persisted in breaking guidelines. It is not disruptive to enforce existing text pending discussion on the talk page and to accuse an experienced editor with SME (my identity is public) of it is to break WP:AGF as I said. If you think I have a negative track record feel free to raise it an ANI but if you feel competent to evaluate my 'track record' you hardly count as a newbe. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:BRD. It says that reversion is a last resort. One of the links mentions that a reversion feels like "a slap in the face."

Your edit summaries feel like another slap in the face: "Restored text which was at least meaningful", "nothing notable about that", "That dichotomy is just plain wrong", "Truly terrible definition!"

I read WP:AGF. First of all, I'm not making any remarks about your intent. "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia," --- Disruptive editing.

It also says that if are reverted you discuss not engage in edit warring; If I could have made minor improvements to your edit I would have, but it was too extensive and too damaging to the meaning do I reverted. If you are going to be this sensitive you are going to find Wikipedia a hard place to work - which would be a pity -----Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]