User talk:Rodersb
| This is Rodersb's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Edit-warring, reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
[edit]- I see that you have been warned about edit-warring at Multi-stage fitness test. I also see that you yourself have warned MrOllie about edit-warring on the same article as yourself, so you are certainly aware of the policy; please comply with it. If you don't, you may well be blocked from editing. (Incidentaly, I see that your warning to MrOllie was posted after he had made two reverts, despite the fact that you had made three reverts of the same material.)
- I suggest you have a look at the guideline on reliable sources. YouTube is rarely suitable as a source.
- I also suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The fact that a long list of information is, in an editor's opinion, "useful" is not sufficient reason for inclusion. JBW (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That info you are trying to remove it's been there since the creation of the entry in 2006, if it's been there all that time is for a reason, me myself and I am sure many others come back to that entry specifically for those calculations.
- Regarding the sources, the source of the calculations is the multi stage fitness or beep test itself and anyone can check if they are correct or not, don't need an eminence to tell us, just don't want to redo them every time.
- Kind Regards. Rodersb (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Multi-stage fitness test for restoring unreferenced content and failure to comply with WP:V and WP:OR, which are core content policies. You are free to make Edit requests at Talk: Multi-stage fitness test but you must provide a reference to a published, reliable source. This is not negotiable when the content has been challenged. Your unacceptable personal attacks are a lesser factor, but knock off that behavior too. Please read the Guide to appeaaling blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That info you are trying to remove it's been there since the creation of the entry in 2006, what you are doing is impoverishing the Wikipedia entry.
- Regarding sources, what you are telling me is like quoting sources for the periodic table itself, you will see the images in the article have no sources, becaus it is what it is. Periodic table Rodersb (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rodersb, when you are clearly inexperienced in editing Wikipedia it is a really bad idea to argue and pick fights. You restored that content SEVEN times against the opinions of three or four seasoned Wikipedia editors, and on top of that you start calling them names. In addition, you seem to suggest that because they haven't done some test they shouldn't be allowed to edit the article? What kind of argument is that? Sorry, but you should really try to act more like a grown-up here. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That argument already took place in 2020 with the outcome being that the content was back, I am sorry but despite not being a usual Wikipedia editor I will have to stand my ground regarding that entry, because me and people like me are the ones using its content in a day to day basis. Rodersb (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- On the "been there since 2006" argument, see WP:UNCHALLENGED, it doesn't help much. WP has changed a lot since 2006, and stuff that was ok-ish then may not be considered so today. Of course, it may not have been ok-ish then either, but that's not relevant now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- From 2006 to now is a continuum, so you can't say Wikipedia is changed a lot since then, you ought to say Wikipedia is changed a lot since yesterday which obviously is a fallacy.. That content was put there in 2006 and stuck for 16 years, being there until just 10 days ago.. Rodersb (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also known as the "Sorites paradox", usually challenged as a continuum fallacy. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- From 2006 to now is a continuum, so you can't say Wikipedia is changed a lot since then, you ought to say Wikipedia is changed a lot since yesterday which obviously is a fallacy.. That content was put there in 2006 and stuck for 16 years, being there until just 10 days ago.. Rodersb (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- On the "been there since 2006" argument, see WP:UNCHALLENGED, it doesn't help much. WP has changed a lot since 2006, and stuff that was ok-ish then may not be considered so today. Of course, it may not have been ok-ish then either, but that's not relevant now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That argument already took place in 2020 with the outcome being that the content was back, I am sorry but despite not being a usual Wikipedia editor I will have to stand my ground regarding that entry, because me and people like me are the ones using its content in a day to day basis. Rodersb (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rodersb, when you are clearly inexperienced in editing Wikipedia it is a really bad idea to argue and pick fights. You restored that content SEVEN times against the opinions of three or four seasoned Wikipedia editors, and on top of that you start calling them names. In addition, you seem to suggest that because they haven't done some test they shouldn't be allowed to edit the article? What kind of argument is that? Sorry, but you should really try to act more like a grown-up here. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
If you wish to, you may propose the following changes to Wikipedia policy: (1) Wikipedia should start aiming to be a directory and a practical manual, containing anything and everything that anyone finds useful, and (2) anything which has been in an article for a long time must stay there, no matter whether it complies with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. I doubt that you will get very far with those proposals, but you are perfectly free to try. However, unless and until those changes are made, you must accept Wikipedia policies as they are, not as you would prefer them to be. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by people with different opinions agreeing to accept consensus, even when they personally disagree with that consensus. There are aspects of Wikipedia policy that I don't like, but I comply with them. Editors who persist in doing whatever they personally prefer, irrespective of policy and of consensus among other editors, don't last long. JBW (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)