User talk:LyonnaisLozannais

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, LyonnaisLozannais! Thank you for your contributions. I am HopsonRoad and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HopsonRoad (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continents[edit]

Thanks for posting your reasons on my talk page. However the correct place for this discuss is on the article talk page so all editors can see the discussion and comment. Please take the discussion there. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is only you who is disagreeing at taking this a some sort of war. It’s funny how people with more edits have a right to impose their views. I’m not even pointing out personal views, but facts, in order to warn non-native English speakers of an ambiguity that exists. But well, I suppose fish shouldn’t fight sharks LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion with the other editor was resolved de facto. A changed no information, I just put a goddamn warning as an extension of an existing one that is saying the same thing as I am but without explaining why, preexisting not whose source is a dead link from NatGeo. They should be sweeping those things. So I’m not changing or erasing information anymore, all of which was there initially is there. The English Wikipedia is since many years ago a “property” of people all around the world, not only anglophone countries, and that has implications, such as ambiguities between languages and concepts in those languages. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again this discussion should be on the article talk page so other editors can see it but I will make some comments anyway. No this issue of North and South America has been addressed by a number of editors so its not just me. Its easy enough to look into the edit history of the page. I have no more authority for edits to stay in an article than you. I am just following Wikipedia policies to build an encyclopaedia. I have tried to state Wikipedia policy as I see it. You have every right to object and make your case on the article talk page as to why your edits should remain. You are welcome to further discuss this issue on the article talk page and reach consensus with other editors. You may be surprised and your suggested edit is decided as being a valuable addition. But you cannot simply keep re-adding the information while a discussion is underway. Please read and understand WP:BRD and WP:WAR Robynthehode (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only other one editing the page since I started editing Largoplazo. Who reverted back information I erased, and made me understand that my measure was extreme. That was settled already; as I had already said. So this is not me against a bunch of editors, I checked that.

And since the first time you told me to add a discussion I did it. So, you can end suggesting it, maybe if you checked the talk page you would notice it. I wrote it in a more educated fashion than this “February 2020” thread, as I’m not fighting with the community. It was not funny the conceited commentary of “I’m giving you another chance”, which is interesting, since that part of the text vanished into thin air.

I suppose we can all learn something out of this. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to accept that your previous editing disagreements with other editors are resolved. However it doesn't matter whether one editor reverts your contributions or many - Wikipedia protocols still apply. Yes you did go to the talk page to comment when I asked you to but you still reverted my edit or re-added substantially the same information in a different place in the article. I did go to the talk page and see your first comment but I responded to your continued editing - against Wikipedia protocol. The I am 'giving you another chance' was because of your repeated reverts or edits adding the information giving the impression you thought you were right and Wikipedia policy is wrong. I asked politely but there is a limit. Did you read the articles I linked to about Wikipedia policy? This whole issue seems to be based on your misunderstanding about the process of discussion. Make bold edits - yes. Another editor reverts and asks you to go to talk page - go to the talk page and state the reasons for your edit. Wait. Wait. Do not revert or re-edit the same information. If the editor who reverted does not respond. Wait a bit more (a few days at least). If a substantial amount of time has passed maybe re-add the information or ask for an Request for Comment WP:RFC from other editors. This all could have been avoided. There are rules in Wikipedia. I don't always get it right but I read Wikipedia policy and guidelines and try to apply it fairly. Maybe do a bit of reading on these policies and this won't happen again (and I will review my approach to new editors as well) Robynthehode (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the substantial difference betwenn the RfC and discussions? The prospect of re-adding anything to that article is not likely since you are engaged, so I’ll have to follow the protocols.

Anyhow, we obviously disagree on the List of transcontinental countries article. So, who decides who’s right?

And why you have the upper hand? I’m not changing substantial information -anymore-, only adding a rather necessary note for readers on the English Wikipedia that aren’t from English speaking countries. It is very different from portraying personal views. The issue I’ve been mentioning exists, and I’m only remarking it’s existence. It’s not false information. So you just don’t like it for some other reason.

Obviously you have more edits, but I want to know if there’s any logical reason for you “being right” other than experience -which isn’t a synonym of knowing more or being right on something-. It’s only two of us in this.

The other thing with the only other editor I’ve been having “differences” was with Largoplazo, and that was settled. I’m not erasing the debatable information, doing that is out of the table.

Points is, what follows now?

And, it is just feasible for me to threaten other editors to be restricted due to edits that I don’t like, once I reach some senior level? Rather than unfair, that is nonsensical. I mean, I wouldn’t do it.

I’m listening to what you have to say. LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.” Why am I the only one in risk of that?

“There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.”

“Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.” So??? Any fourth revert no matter when can be punished? LyonnaisLozannais (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - A convention on talk pages is to indent each new contribution (in the same discussion/issue) by putting a 'colon' at the start of the new edit. This helps readability. Secondly I do not have 'the upper hand' nor should I. Editing is not about who has most edits or is more experienced. You are perfectly entitled to make the case (on the article talk page) for your edits and any editor should respect this. However having your edit reverted is not because (for the vast majority of cases) because someone doesn't like your edit but because they don't think it improves the article in question. Improving articles is the aim of building an encyclopaedia WP:BUILDWP. A helpful link to understand the process in resolving disputes such as this one is WP:CON which describes what consensus is and how it is achieved. This page also has links to various dispute resolution processes, one of which is Request for Comment WP:RFC, another which may be more appropriate is enlisting the comments of a third editor WP:3O. In all this discussion about proper editing protocol I have not expanding on my reasons why I think your edit is unwarranted. I will do this at the article talk page. We can then hopefully move forward on this but please read the information on the 'consensus' WP:CON page. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your comment on the talk page and I have two comments: you have failed to indent your comment making it harder to read. Did you not read my above comment that was meant to help? You also put your comment in the wrong section (if you were answering what I had said) making it again hard to see. As to your reasons for inclusion of the extra text I still disagree so the next step is to discuss further or proceed with one or more of the other dispute resolution processes. Robynthehode (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]