User talk:Wtsao

The consensus process

Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the consensus process on Wikipedia, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state here: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: BRD, "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial.

While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue dispute resolution to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Wikipedia's definition. To quote that policy, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from WP:3RR. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute edit warring.

At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at Cloud computing. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. It's hard to be stay calm while being bullied around (not to mention falsely accused) but I'll try. Wtsao (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

You might want to read up on that a bit more before filing groundless accusations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you can't expect to hide behind WP:AGF when you are part of an obvious puppetry. As an experienced editor, you should know better. Wtsao (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, am I an experienced editor, or a sock puppet? Make up your mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]