User talk:81.102.123.104

On Policies and Guidelines

I'd like to note that "The whole purpose of guidelines is that a user doesn't need any more justification to make an edit other than 'it's what the guideline says'"[1] is quite incorrect. Guidelines (and even policies) exist to promote harmonious editing among lots of users with lots of different opinions; they do not exist unto themselves. WP:P&G states the full aim right from the start: the P&Gs are here to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia - notably, and purposefully, the P&Gs are NOT to be used as the sole justification in discussions about encyclopedic content. Such justifications come from EDITORS who give a care how an article looks. Which is why Guidelines come with the exception disclaimer. And why even Policies may be overruled by consensus at times, a la WP:IAR. See also: WP:NOTBURO. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "they exist unto themselves" was implicit in what I wrote. My point was precisely that: they allow more efficient and consistent editing as they mean that a user doesn't need to justify every little edit they make from the ground up. Without guidelines we'd just end up hitting lots of roadblocks and getting into long tedious arguments which don't go anywhere, of which the current discussion is a brilliant case-in-point. When clear consensus cannot be reached, we defer to the guidelines. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

When clear consensus cannot be reached, we defer to the guidelines; nope - then we go to WP:NOCON. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is for cases when there is genuinely no consensus. Guidelines represent general consensus. If you're invoking IAR, you're admitting your edit is against general consensus. "no consensus" doesn't just mean "no consensus in my favour". 81.102.123.104 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, talk about moving the goalposts. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Self-referential humor, you may be blocked from editing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Self-referential humor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---