User talk:Curious Blue/Orangemarlin

My opinion

Re-reverting does not "stop" revert wars, it escalates them. When two editors agree and one opposes, the one opposing should take it to the talk page while waiting to see if a fourth editor reverts. Curious Blue (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work that way my friend. It is what is supported by verified references. And one editor doesn't oppose. About 20 do, when the article was tuned up. It's night here in the US. Keep reverting away, and someone will block you for 3RR, and it will go back to the most stable form. Let me point you to a few resources in Wikipedia: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert you again, but if you want to be more convincing, you'd let somebody else do it. Surely with 20 other editors behind you it would not take long. I believe that the article is currently biased against homeopathy, as discussed recently on the talk page. I have no desire to unbalance it in the other direction, but I cannot fail to notice that you omitted WP:NPOV from your list of things to read, and that your not even veiled threats violate WP:AGF. You've never spoken to me before, why reply is such a harsh manner? BTW, are you an admin? Curious Blue (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Actually you have made 4 reverts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one revert, one partial revert, and two attempts to find different acceptable compromise language. If you file a 3RR report you are clearly trying to intimidate by gaming the system and I will respond accordingly. Curious Blue (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Orangemarlin. I believe I have been quite circumspect. I did one full revert [1], one partial revert which left out the one change that Orangemarlin specifically objected to [2], and since then have attempted three different attempts at compromise wording without including any of the other changes: [3], [4], [5]. These were done while soliciting and integrating feedback from the talk page, a discussion which Orangemarlin has not participated in. He, on the other hand, is one his third full revert. Curious Blue (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]