4 ms·

First off, you shouldn't be edit warring [0], but rather you should discuss issues on the talk page. [1] As for the situation, it sounds like other editors disc

First off, you shouldn't be edit warring [0], but rather you should discuss issues on the talk page. [1] As for the situation, it sounds like other editors discussed the issue and came to a consensus on how it should be handled. [2] It sounds to me like Wikipedia was able to adapt to a different kind of situation (instead of stubbornly clinging to the "rule of the law") and that you personally just didn't like how it was handled. For that you could ask the relevant WikiProject for guidance [3] or start an RFC [4]. Instead you just came here to complain about how the system worked, just not in your favor; not really constructive. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobi... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Edit: Since HN is saying that I'm "submitting too fast" even though I haven't commented in half an hour, I'll reply to the replies here. (Really stupid that it throttles you just because you went against the hivemind) @basch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTF%3F_OMG!_TMD_TLA._ARG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTF%3F_OMG!_TMD_TLA....! :) Also those are pretty important policies, would you rather Wikipedians just ignore them and cede to whatever demands you have? @FireBeyond Yes I was being optimistic because all I had to go off of was your own description. If people are ignoring you, add a comment and tell them to discuss it until a consensus is reached. If they still edit war, then you can request page protection. And yeah you're right that I assumed you're naive, apologies, it's too bad in this case then. Still, there's nothing stopping you from removing that information and restarting the discussion.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Haha. You're excessively optimistic and assume naivety on my part. 1. Agreed. Except: I discussed my concerns on the Talk page. Nobody paid any attention to it, let alone replied. I discussed that I had removed an edit because by its own statement didn't fit the criteria on the page. 2. No. No other editor discussed anything, on the Talk page, or elsewhere. Just reverted my reverts, or rearranged slightly. So really, your example is more a failing of the system, rather than a complaint of "me just not getting my way". "Use the Talk Page" - works only if all parties also do so. You can see here how well this worked out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_productio... "Don't edit war" - works only if all parties do so, otherwise it's "Victory of the Stubborn" "Assume Good Faith"... like you did here, and assumed the worst, that I'm naive about these things. The reality was that a certain group were hell bent on being the first to add the Tesla as one of the fastest production automobiles and weren't interested in hearing any discussion to the contrary. For full clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Achromatic&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%...
basch 10y ago
this comment violates WP:UNDUE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... WP:SYNTHESIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... so on and so forth. people citing conflicting rules back and forth at each other forever, ad nauseum that is one of the reasons people leave wikipedia right away, they get hit with pages and pages of rules and style guides and tons of other technicalities. reject over help fix is the status quo.
basch 10y ago
I think WP:UNDUE is one of the most disruptive and misused rules on WP. It's a trump card for anyone experienced editor who favors deletion. It's intention was as an equal time rule, where VIEWPOIONTS were balanced. Instead it is used anytime an editor thinks one section weighs too much, or personally doesnt find the information of value. The thing is, if I only have part to contribute to an article, it makes no sense to put my contribution on hold until other parts of the article flesh out, it becomes a catch22, self limiting the article. I think its pretty obvious I side with inclusion of just about everything. The belief in not letting part of an article grow until the other part does is asinine. If weight becomes imbalanced, write more. OR Maybe viewpoint A requires 10,000 words, and viewpoint B only requires 100 to prove its point. Eitherway WP:UNDUE stinks.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Haha. You're excessively optimistic and assume naivety on my part. 1. Agreed. Except: I discussed my concerns on the Talk page. Nobody paid any attention to it, let alone replied. I discussed that I had removed an edit because by its own statement didn't fit the criteria on the page. 2. No. No other editor discussed anything, on the Talk page, or elsewhere. Just reverted my reverts, or rearranged slightly. So really, your example is more a failing of the system, rather than a complaint of "me just not getting my way". "Use the Talk Page" - works only if all parties also do so. You can see here how well this worked out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_productio... "Don't edit war" - works only if all parties do so, otherwise it's "Victory of the Stubborn" "Assume Good Faith"... like you did here, and assumed the worst, that I'm naive about these things. The reality was that a certain group were hell bent on being the first to add the Tesla as one of the fastest production automobiles and weren't interested in hearing any discussion to the contrary. For full clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Achromatic&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%...

basch 10y ago

this comment violates WP:UNDUE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... WP:SYNTHESIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... so on and so forth. people citing conflicting rules back and forth at each other forever, ad nauseum that is one of the reasons people leave wikipedia right away, they get hit with pages and pages of rules and style guides and tons of other technicalities. reject over help fix is the status quo.

basch 10y ago

I think WP:UNDUE is one of the most disruptive and misused rules on WP. It's a trump card for anyone experienced editor who favors deletion. It's intention was as an equal time rule, where VIEWPOIONTS were balanced. Instead it is used anytime an editor thinks one section weighs too much, or personally doesnt find the information of value. The thing is, if I only have part to contribute to an article, it makes no sense to put my contribution on hold until other parts of the article flesh out, it becomes a catch22, self limiting the article. I think its pretty obvious I side with inclusion of just about everything. The belief in not letting part of an article grow until the other part does is asinine. If weight becomes imbalanced, write more. OR Maybe viewpoint A requires 10,000 words, and viewpoint B only requires 100 to prove its point. Eitherway WP:UNDUE stinks.