User talk:Gekko
Greed is good :)
Reverting Without Discussion and Consensus
[edit]In the future, please refrain from reverting edits without first discussing and obtaining consensus. That may be considered vandalism. After the AfD closed, you first reverted edits without discussing the content, and you didn't attempt to reach a consensus for your rv's. You called the article a "mess!" in your edit description and insisted on a "NPOV" - but interestingly, your POV tag was removed by another user after the smallest of changes. It would be helpful in the future if you would avoid such heated exaggeration, and instead make an attempt to participate in discussion and obtain consensus about article content before rv'ing another user's edits. Thank you. GO WHARTON 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You were the one that deleted content without discussion or consensus, my reversion was to the previous state, with the deleted content restored. Gekko 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, before your first reversion, I and other users discussed a number of rankings-related changes during the AfD discussion. Then in the article discussion, several conciliatory suggestions regarding how rankings might be handled in the article were made to you, all of which you ignored. Instead, you continued your practice of reverting users' edits without discussion or consensus. Several Wikipedia admins have suggested that everyone drop this topic because they say it's not worth it, don't you agree? Consider this your opportunity to demonstrate personal growth and good faith, and move on, as admins have recommended. GO WHARTON 21:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just lying, as anyone can see from looking at the AfD discussion [1]. You were the only user that posted on rankings-related changes (Dpbsmith only had a comment that he was glad there wasn't rankings information there), and you only had the one comment - in support of the article you created. And as for your conciliatory suggestions, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is hardly conciliatory. But I won't argue with you further now that you've demonstrated bad faith. Gekko 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's just you lying again Gekko. In the AfD discussion, three people talked about rankings, MBAguy, me, and Dpbsmith. Dpbsmith and I were glad there wasn't rankings information in the article, while MBAguy had a different take. That's two to one. So I made a compromise edit after our discussion and after the AfD closed to "tone down rankings emphasis," not completely remove it. And you demonstrated bad faith by reverting, without discussion, my edit. The admins said we should just let it go and move on, but you don't seem willing to do that, another demonstration of your bad faith. GO WHARTON 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Viewing the link I included above verifies that just about everything you write here is false. Gekko 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The link you included above verifies that just about everything you write here is false. As admins have suggested, it's best that you let it go and move on. GO WHARTON 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Viewing the link I included above verifies that just about everything you write here is false. Gekko 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's just you lying again Gekko. In the AfD discussion, three people talked about rankings, MBAguy, me, and Dpbsmith. Dpbsmith and I were glad there wasn't rankings information in the article, while MBAguy had a different take. That's two to one. So I made a compromise edit after our discussion and after the AfD closed to "tone down rankings emphasis," not completely remove it. And you demonstrated bad faith by reverting, without discussion, my edit. The admins said we should just let it go and move on, but you don't seem willing to do that, another demonstration of your bad faith. GO WHARTON 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just lying, as anyone can see from looking at the AfD discussion [1]. You were the only user that posted on rankings-related changes (Dpbsmith only had a comment that he was glad there wasn't rankings information there), and you only had the one comment - in support of the article you created. And as for your conciliatory suggestions, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is hardly conciliatory. But I won't argue with you further now that you've demonstrated bad faith. Gekko 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, before your first reversion, I and other users discussed a number of rankings-related changes during the AfD discussion. Then in the article discussion, several conciliatory suggestions regarding how rankings might be handled in the article were made to you, all of which you ignored. Instead, you continued your practice of reverting users' edits without discussion or consensus. Several Wikipedia admins have suggested that everyone drop this topic because they say it's not worth it, don't you agree? Consider this your opportunity to demonstrate personal growth and good faith, and move on, as admins have recommended. GO WHARTON 21:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You were the one that deleted content without discussion or consensus, my reversion was to the previous state, with the deleted content restored. Gekko 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Ivy League business schools
[edit] An article that you have been involved in editing, Ivy League business schools, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy League business schools. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.