User talk:Infinitesimall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2020[edit]

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Tartan357: I just finished reverting now, so sorry for not having seen this. But all of my edits were in good faith, whereas your reverts didn't follow the policies at WP:RV, and go against WP:ROWN. As I wrote, if you think there was an issue with my edits I think the appropriate forum would be a talk page discussion to get consensus. I also don't see why you sent these warnings to me when you did the exact same thing to my edits?

Lastly, on the merits, there are no content differences between your edits and mine, whereas mine provide for a more neutral Page Image (particularly important in the mobile app). So I believe they were clearly warranted. But as I said if you disagree feel free to start a talk discussion.

The warnings are for edit-warring. You WP:BOLDly made some changes to longstanding content, which is fine, and were reverted. When that happens, you should not restore your changes. See WP:BRD. Edit-warring is disruptive regardless of who is right because we end up wasting a lot of time on the back-and-forth. Please self-revert and we can have a discussion on the merits of the changes. Please note that neither WP:RV or WP:ROWN are policies, but community essays that are only nonbinding opinions. WP:EW is a policy. I will withdraw the edit-warring report against you as you're now responding to my messages. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: OK, fair enough, I see that my undos went against the informal WP:BRD policy, which I was not aware of. So, my apologies for that, and I'll do my best to adhere to it going forward. But that is in the same vein as your initial violations of the equally informal WP:RV and WP:ROWN policies. Additionally, from my reading I believe your reverts were against the policies around reverts suggested on WP:BRD itself. Lastly, and ultimately most importantly, yet again I'll claim that my edits themselves were beneficial and within Wiki's policies, so I don't see the need to revert them all (again). Again, happy to take that to a broader forum. Ultimately, I think the real issue here is a technical one, in that wikimedia doesn't allow images to be directly chosen as a Page Image, but that's probably a discussion for another day. --Infinitesimall (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitesimall, WP:CON and WP:EW are formal policies. WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to WP:CON, but the core principle at issue here, which is policy, is that you should not restore your changes without discussion if you are aware that others have objected to them. Your statement that [my] reverts were against the policies around reverts suggested on WP:BRD itself is incorrect. Reverting a bold change the first time it is made is exactly what WP:BRD is about. As for the merits of the change, the [[File: syntax for images has been deprecated within election infoboxes. See Template:Infobox election. There is a seperate image_size parameter that is preferred now that makes it easier for all images to be kept at the same size. The issue you describe with the preview images is the same for all election articles that use this template. I'd support you making a suggestion at Template talk:Infobox election if you want to do that. Also, Jorgensen's portrait was cropped to a specific aspect ratio, 3:4, which is now standard for election infobox portraits. If you don't want to self-revert, may I please do so now? ― Tartan357 (Talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: OK, I've added a section to Template talk:Infobox election. Please correct if I've mischaracterized anything there. I've kept the referencing to reverts brief as I don't think it materially effects the underlying issue. I've already admitted I made I mistake by not adhering to WP:BRD when I reverted your reverts. Clearly I should have stopped there and tried to build consensus first. I would appreciate it if you took a look at your own actions as well, namely:
  • WP:ROWN is explicitly suggested in the lede of WP:BRD. Of course you're correct that it's an informal policy, but it still exists for a reason: as a new editor trying to improve these pages, it's incredibly disheartening to have hours of edits reverted for a (in my view relatively minor) technical issue, with little explanation and no effort to acknowledge the rationale behind the edits.
  • This is made no better when immediately threatened with "edit war" and "disruptive editing" warnings and reporting me to admins when I attempted to rectify the issue. On that note, it's pretty clear we never got into an WP:EW: there weren't three reverts, or anything like it, and I didn't "repeatedly restore [my] preferred version," I only did so once, just across 50 pages.
  • Much as I erred in reverting your reverts, per WP:BRD, you've now done the same. It says this explicitly at WP:BRDD: If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. and in WP:BRDR: If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. I'm going to stop the cycle now, but I don't really appreciate you being sanctimonious about restor[ing] changes without discussion if you are aware that others have objected to them when you are doing exactly the same.
I'm going to stop responding here, and move over to Template talk:Infobox election to discuss the underlying issue. I'm guessing you disagree with some of my above characterizations of your actions and how they relate to these policies. If you'd like to respond here, that's fine and I'll read it, but I don't think we'd get anything productive out of more back and forth after that.

Notice related to articles on american politics[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ST47 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitesimall&oldid=1048427002"