Talk:Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Anabaptist Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Anabaptist work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Date Ret?

How is WP:DATERET being observed by changing the date formatting to dmy? When I applied MDY here, there was no consistent date format. The first time a date format was used was when the article was created, on 2004-01-12T02:15:58‎. That date format was MDY: "January 6, 1860". The guideline that, "the date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Canadian subjects have no DATETIES. No discussion on talk page to change. Perhaps anon can explain the edit war over this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AN/EW (since apparently that's where we discuss content disputes now...):

From WP:AN/EW

The editor is also harassing me, claiming I assumed bad faith by warning the editor, which I later revoked and apologized over. The rest is self-explanatory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Why would you warn after all the edits take place? Isn't a warning to get particular behaviour to stop?

The reversions of Septrillion was because of a software glitch of some sort on their end. This is discussed at User talk:Septrillion § Unexplained reversions. Those reversions also have nothing to do with the concern you made.

Why would you open a discussion on a talk page seeking information from a particular editor without notifying them? I genuinely didn't see the discussion until now. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ... which I later revoked and apologized over. Where is this apology to which you are referring? While I did note the lack of apology on my talk page, I don't recall receiving one since.

You have also not answered the question on my talk page: with whom was I "edit warring" as claimed? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For the record, the anon seems to be an intelligent editor who has made many good edits with policy and guideline in mind, but for some reason has taken exception with a date change I made and other changes on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One reversal ≠ edit warring. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the justification on the talk page, I completely agree with Walter Görlitz regarding the date format. He had not provided that their format change was made pursuant to MOS:DATERET (instead broadly citing MOS:DATEFORMAT) and thus there was no prima facie justification for a format change. As the article first used MDY, I agree that should be used here and will return that to the article if there is no objection. I do, however, still want to know how one reversal (not even a full reversion) constitutes an "edit war". Could you enlighten us, Walter Görlitz? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss content disputes on the article's talk pages. We discuss edit warring at WP:3RRN. You didn't do your homework to understand what DATERET meant an reverted my change and the reverts made by another editor. Edit warring and content issues are related, and while I'm glad you are talking now, but you waited too long to observe WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm confused. You made a bold edit. I reversed part of it. You chose not to discuss it at the time, only posting this discussion six minutes before opening a 3RR report. At what point was WP:BRD not adhered to? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the edit history. I warned you for exceeding four edits in a twenty-four-hour period. When you reverted my date formatting change, and then were reverted, that's when you should have started the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD doesn't provide that the imperative is on me to start the discussion. So at what point was WP:BRD not adhered to? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct. The entire process is optional. In fact, so is editing on Wikipedia. However, making a bold change and then reverting is common. The onus is not on either editor to start the discussion, but the expectation is that a discussion actually starts before an editor reaches three reverts. Since you were the one most like to reach that point, I would have expected you to reach-out to discuss, but instead, you bullied your way into pushing @Septrillion: to self-revert rather than hit that bight-line of three. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]