User talk:Cpsoper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Newton's cradle

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg

Request to Withdraw RfC[edit]

According to "Ending RfC's" policy, you may close your RfC of your own accord. I am asking you to do so since some editors are arguing that while it is open my efforts to introduce a new section touching on the material you identified is inappropriate. Once your RfC is closed, I intend to introduce my suggested new section and issue a new RfC regarding that contribution. (As you will see, since the other editors have refused to expand the section I started for those denying the allegations, I have done so in order to give adequate weight to what the viewpoint the obstructionists hold most dear.)

Thank you for considering this request. I think your withdrawal of your RfC is necessary to refocus the conversation to the obvious fact that the issue of alleged bias is widely covered by multiple reliable source on both sides of that allegation. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that there is no process for 'closing' an RfC in this manner (early closure is only possible where the outcome is clear and undisputed) and to do so, as GodBlessYou2 clearly intends, because the result isn't going the way of the minority of participants, is completely at odds with the consensus-building methodology and principles of Wikipedia. A question was asked. The question is being answered. The RfC must run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, having consulted WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, we have a reasonable sample of opinion, what is needed next is to weight the merits and demerits of the arguments and seek a consensus.Cpsoper (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No. Absolutely wrong - the RfC must be closed by an uninvolved editor, with a statement as to the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Improper closure of RfC[edit]

Since you have chosen to ignore both my advice, and the advice of admin Bishonen on the talk page, I have reverted your improper premature closure of the ongoing RfC at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. You do not get to ignore the clear emerging consensus of an RfC just because you don't like it. If you should be so misguided as to try this again, you can be assured that I will raise the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be sanctioned for your entirely unjustified attempt to subvert the Wikipedia consensus-building process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be quick to endorse them when they hit ANI. Don't do that, Cpsoper.--Adam in MO Talk 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, gents, it is noted. The guidance I relied on was this, 'the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)' as I believe it has been, a reasonable sample has been obtained, and I reiterate that it is better to seek a consensus based on evidential weight for an edit on this matter. Cpsoper (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus as of this moment is clear - that material relating to claims of supposed 'silencing of dissidents' (as you put it - questionable phraseology incidentally for what is suposed to be a neutrally-worded question) does not belong in the article, per WP:WEIGHT. If you are acceptring this, fine - but that isn't what you claimed in your edit, where you stated that "we have a reasonable sample of opinion which needs weighing, and following the request below, I suggest we engage in consensus seeking below". 'The purpose of the RfC was to establish consensus - and when it has done so, we don't go through the same process again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Your claim about WP:weight is disputed, the rfc was to seek comment, that accomplished, consensus building amongst the participants is a distinct process. Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus has already been built - that is the purpose of an RfC. And I'm not going to discuss this here further - any attempt by you to subvert the consensus-building process further will be reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is not a little flawed, as is evident from your contributions here. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "not a little flawed"?--Adam in MO Talk 22:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't you detect an internal contradiction in the two halves of the statement? Cpsoper (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. Spell it out for me.--Adam in MO Talk 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Built is perfect, building is imperfect.Cpsoper (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That isn't a cogent sentence. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.--Adam in MO Talk 18:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's terse and grammatical, but perhaps needs expansion: 'The consensus has already been built', 'to subvert the consensus-building process', the former description alludes to something complete, the second is partial and incomplete. The point is we should indeed be working on an edit based on consensus, however that consensus is, as AtG acknowledges, actually far from complete or satisfactory. Clear enough now, Adam? Cpsoper (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for being a bit dense, but can you perhaps tell me what you meant to say with that YouTube link in this edit? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lighten up a little, courtesy of the successors of some the world's toughest rottweilers. Cpsoper (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel stupid, but I still don't get it... --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obscure, the Red Army were ferocious enough to crush even the Nazis, and it was their sacrifices which really broke Hitler's back, well before D Day, they were the hardest men of all in their day, it's somewhat ironic their choir is now apeing some cheerful American fluff - but personally I rather enjoy the juxtaposition, and I thought it might help AtG, who seems a little dour at times, laughter is good for the bones. Best wishes. Cpsoper (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Not really funny, I think. When having a heated discussion with someone, you should avoid this kind of thing, lest it be interpreted wrongly. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
With respect, RK, humour often prevents wars from starting in bigger circles than wiki edits, but I agree sometimes things are taken amiss. Cpsoper (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Humor can indeed lubricate relations, but if you're already being very hostile to each other, then humor really needs to be obvious and clearly non-hostile to do the job. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Supersessionism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

Please allow the discussion on talk to resolve before adding this back. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised how quick you are to issue edit war notices , on an edit [1] which directly addressed the question raised by another editor. Edit wars are usually characterised as removals and reversions, not the simple addition of a reference to address another editor's concerns! Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)