Wikipedia talk:Don't be a bull in a china shop

Some thoughts

A good essay that needed to be written. Editors who run rampant but never say anything on any talk page or noticeboards are a pet peeve of mine. However, I would like to take issue with the phrase Unilaterally making bold edits to a large number of articles without discussion or consensus. The key phrase here is bold and we encourage this. Making "bold" edits, consensus or not, only becomes a problem if such bold edits are repeated without discussion after reasonable objections. Otherwise no harm no foul. It should also be noted that objections should be reasonable. One should not object to a bold edit simply because it is a bold edit.

Also, this image does look like the talk page of a long term uncommunicative editor but it also looks like the talk page of some poor newbie who just got tag bombed. Notice that every section there is a robo-generated warning by a bot or a script. Before assuming that a new user is a "bull in a china shop" or an uncommunicative editor, one should first try editing their talk page and typing something there besides {{subst:Uw-Nastygram}}. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, and I cordially invite you to boldly edit this essay and make it better. Cheers, —SW— ^gab 02:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think my original intention with the comment about "unilaterally making bold edits to a large number of articles" was to discuss the type of editor who, upon finding that the retail price of every Pokemon doll is not listed in each Pokemon doll article, decides to go on an editing spree adding inappropriate information to hundreds of articles. But, I can see how my choice of words is ripe for misinterpretation. —SW— ^communicate 02:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that would be a a problem but even in a case like this, if he immediately stops when asked to do so by reasonable editors, politely makes his case on the relevant talk page(s), and is willing to drop the issue when the consensus is against him, then again "no harm no foul" It's the difference between "bold, revert, discuss, shrug, leave" (now there's an essay idea) and "bold, revert, bold revert, bold, revert, bold, revert, bold revert, block, sock, ban". However, how many times have you seen an editor take a newbie straight to ANI over a series of bold edits without any attempt at dialog? Well, this tangent should be continued on a village pump near you as this page is suppose to be for discussing improvements to the essay :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)