User talk:Sportmedman
Sportmedman, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Sportmedman!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
GM controversies article
[edit]Hi Sportmedman - I've watched your edits with interest, and you and I have had some good interactions. Quick word of advice as to what is happening now. I understand that you are frustrated that your edits were reverted without much explanation, but you are indeed wrong about bobraynor violating 3RR. First, an editor has to make more than 3 reversions in less than 24 hours to violate the rule. Secondly while the language in the lead of Wikipedia:Edit warring is a little ambiguous, it is clear in the body, and very very clear in practice, that each reversion is a separate edit. So one edit that reverts 3 changes you made does not violate 3RR at all. This is a moment of challenge for you. The wikipedia, community-building, and your-credibility-building thing to do now would be to come to talk and a) admit your mistake and apologize; b) as per WP:BRD, explain why your edits should be allowed to stand; and c) ask bobraynor to explain what he sees as wrong with them. I would recommend doing b) +c) each in a new section for each of the 3 edits that you made. The worst thing to do would be to continue to argue that you are that correct on 3RR and the 2nd worst thing would be to only demand that he explain himself... like I said as per WP:BRD you should justify your edits first, and then ask. Anyway, good luck! It will be interesting to see how you choose to act now. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok, so you have chosen the worst path, and you are digging yourself deeper into a hole by editing your own comments improperly, as I explained here. Really - so much of one's experience here depends on how editors conduct themselves, If you get all up in your ego and cannot admit mistakes, you are going to have a miserable time. Again, I know you are frustrated, but please don't let that drive you down a bad road. Everything can be talked out, and there is no deadline here. Take your time. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not notice this comment. There are 4 reversions from separate times and in one case a separate date made in "one" edit. It does not seem correct that "one" edit can revert many previous edits. An entire page can be reverted to how it was 5 years ago in "one" edit reverting possibly hundreds of previous edits in "one" edit. If that is the 3RR policy that it is flawed. I have asked Bobrayner to Talk about a previous reversion and he did not. I will try again, but I do have limited time now because I need to get ready for work. Sportmedman (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for talking! The 3RR policy is what it is, as of now, and to violate 3RR you must make more than 3 separate reverting edits. If you want to change the policy, then please work to do that on the Talk page of 3RR. You are the guy who called in the law; you should know it before you call it. :) I hope you can see your mistake now and will come off your hard and incorrect legal stance, and start discussing content again. As I said, as per WP:BRD the best thing for you to do is to first justify each of your edits, and then ask bob to explain what he sees as wrong with it. thanks again for talking, and good luck! i am actually very interested to see the actual discussion about the edits you made - they are things I have been thinking about. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- by the way, if somebody did what you have suggested here and on the GM controversies Talk page -- namely did some massive revision back to an earlier version, that reversion would probably be considered simply to be WP:DISRUPTIVE and could be reverted on that ground alone, especially if the person irrationally insisted on it. It is a bit of a strawman argument. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)