3 ms·

I’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article i

by j4coh 1y ago

I’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article is.

Hamuko 1y ago
It's even worse when you add a source and you get reverted for reasons quite clearly disproven in your source. I had to make a single edit three times because it got undone twice by two separate administrators. A less stubborn person would've just given up on the first baseless revert and never edited Wikipedia again.
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? (They'd better have been!) And, it probably wasn't administrators, unless you specifically looked. You do sometimes have to be a bit insistent, you're quite right. If someone reverts you, it's often not personal. Ask on the talk page why they reverted, and if no one says anything for 24 hours (definitely wait this long), just try your edit (or a better one!) again. I wrote an essay on this once that still gets used a lot on wiki (misquoted even more often). The original version of the essay had a few more tricks up its sleeve -but- if you do it this way you're not likely to get in trouble at least. And otherwise now you know someone you can ask for help.
  - Hamuko 1y ago
    >When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? Not really. They continued to grumble about being "stuck" with the data on the talk page because they couldn't find any source to refute it, and the last edit one of them made about it was "Since I can't find any source to refute this (everyone seems to use it without question), let's at least sort the data correctly". >And, it probably wasn't administrators, unless you specifically looked. I did look! One of them is still an administrator and the other one is currently a "former administrator". I think I remember the other one being an admin back then too, but I could be misremembering.
    - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
      Oh dear. If you want to point me at the talk page in question, I'll take a look!
      - Hamuko 1y ago
        It's quite an old discussion at this point and is now archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises/Archive_2#On_Tetris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_vide......
undersuit 1y ago
Edits are public so other members of the community can eventually make a case against or for the actions of a dedicated maintainer. Keep trying.
- vasco 1y ago
  Sounds like stackoverflow defenders. I'm another person who tried about 5-7 times over the years to do larger improvements all for it to go to waste. Minor edits many times survive but even those I stopped doing because of the sour effect of the larger ones getting denied.
  - undersuit 1y ago
    [flagged]
- j4coh 1y ago
  Honestly I have more valuable things to do with my time.
  - undersuit 1y ago
    [flagged]

by j4coh 1y ago

I’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article is.

Hamuko 1y ago

It's even worse when you add a source and you get reverted for reasons quite clearly disproven in your source. I had to make a single edit three times because it got undone twice by two separate administrators. A less stubborn person would've just given up on the first baseless revert and never edited Wikipedia again.

Kim_Bruning 1y ago
When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? (They'd better have been!) And, it probably wasn't administrators, unless you specifically looked. You do sometimes have to be a bit insistent, you're quite right. If someone reverts you, it's often not personal. Ask on the talk page why they reverted, and if no one says anything for 24 hours (definitely wait this long), just try your edit (or a better one!) again. I wrote an essay on this once that still gets used a lot on wiki (misquoted even more often). The original version of the essay had a few more tricks up its sleeve -but- if you do it this way you're not likely to get in trouble at least. And otherwise now you know someone you can ask for help.
- Hamuko 1y ago
  >When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? Not really. They continued to grumble about being "stuck" with the data on the talk page because they couldn't find any source to refute it, and the last edit one of them made about it was "Since I can't find any source to refute this (everyone seems to use it without question), let's at least sort the data correctly". >And, it probably wasn't administrators, unless you specifically looked. I did look! One of them is still an administrator and the other one is currently a "former administrator". I think I remember the other one being an admin back then too, but I could be misremembering.
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    Oh dear. If you want to point me at the talk page in question, I'll take a look!
    - Hamuko 1y ago
      It's quite an old discussion at this point and is now archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises/Archive_2#On_Tetris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_vide......

undersuit 1y ago

Edits are public so other members of the community can eventually make a case against or for the actions of a dedicated maintainer. Keep trying.

vasco 1y ago
Sounds like stackoverflow defenders. I'm another person who tried about 5-7 times over the years to do larger improvements all for it to go to waste. Minor edits many times survive but even those I stopped doing because of the sour effect of the larger ones getting denied.
- undersuit 1y ago
  [flagged]
j4coh 1y ago
Honestly I have more valuable things to do with my time.
- undersuit 1y ago
  [flagged]