→Please do not edit other editors' talk page remarks: You should not have done this. |
Edits conformed to Wikipedia policy. See WP:TPO. |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::You may only fix format errors ''that render material difficult to read''. I don't believe that was what you've done; the material was perfectly readable already, you just didn't like it. Reverting my undo to insist that other editors' comments '''must''' be formatted to your liking even after it's been pointed out this is annoying to others strikes me as quite unnecessary. The fact you think you ''may'' do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. |
::You may only fix format errors ''that render material difficult to read''. I don't believe that was what you've done; the material was perfectly readable already, you just didn't like it. Reverting my undo to insist that other editors' comments '''must''' be formatted to your liking even after it's been pointed out this is annoying to others strikes me as quite unnecessary. The fact you think you ''may'' do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. |
||
::As for the warning about my revert, what do you think this was? Would you have preferred to be templated instead? And where was my warning you were editing my talk page comments? [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
::As for the warning about my revert, what do you think this was? Would you have preferred to be templated instead? And where was my warning you were editing my talk page comments? [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Your warning did not mention reverting. And yes, I very much would prefer to be templated instead. Templates are carefully written and have the following advantage; if you can't find a warning template for a specific behavior, you might want to consider whether you are wrong about the behavior being against policy, as I believe you are wrong about policy in this case. I fully agree with the views expressed in [[WP:TR]]. |
|||
:::If you believe that I have done something against policy, I have no problem if you wish to start through the process of dispute resolution. Perhaps a third opinion or mediation will correct whichever one of us is misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. In the meantime I am completely certain that removing bullets from non votes and bolding keep/delete votes are allowed by the Wikipedia policies I quoted. If this is a problem for you, dispute resolution is the proper way to resolve the issue. |
|||
:::I am politely asking you to self-revert your latest revert so as to avoid any appearance of [[WP:EDITWARRING]]. If you choose not to, I will follow the steps listed in [[WP:DISPUTE]] in an attempt to resolve this issue, starting with [[WP:ASSIST]]. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:08, 1 May 2011
"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing." --WP:FLAT
Note: I like to keep a clean talk page and delete most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments if you are interested. All comments are appreciated, especially criticism and corrections.
Please do not edit other editors' talk page remarks
Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments as you did here is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am always open to correction when I am in the wrong, but I am not in the wrong this time. The edit you cited meets the criteria set forth in WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls..." Having one "delete" in italic-lowercase while all the others are in bold-capitalized makes the material difficult to read and could lead to a miscount. Removing bullets from non-votes is specifically allowed, and the misplaced bullets make the material difficult to read and the threading hard to follow. I do appreciate this and any other criticism, though, and I thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- A minor suggestion: when you revert someone's edits, you might want to note that fact when you place a warning on their user page. Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- You may only fix format errors that render material difficult to read. I don't believe that was what you've done; the material was perfectly readable already, you just didn't like it. Reverting my undo to insist that other editors' comments must be formatted to your liking even after it's been pointed out this is annoying to others strikes me as quite unnecessary. The fact you think you may do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- As for the warning about my revert, what do you think this was? Would you have preferred to be templated instead? And where was my warning you were editing my talk page comments? Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your warning did not mention reverting. And yes, I very much would prefer to be templated instead. Templates are carefully written and have the following advantage; if you can't find a warning template for a specific behavior, you might want to consider whether you are wrong about the behavior being against policy, as I believe you are wrong about policy in this case. I fully agree with the views expressed in WP:TR.
- If you believe that I have done something against policy, I have no problem if you wish to start through the process of dispute resolution. Perhaps a third opinion or mediation will correct whichever one of us is misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. In the meantime I am completely certain that removing bullets from non votes and bolding keep/delete votes are allowed by the Wikipedia policies I quoted. If this is a problem for you, dispute resolution is the proper way to resolve the issue.
- I am politely asking you to self-revert your latest revert so as to avoid any appearance of WP:EDITWARRING. If you choose not to, I will follow the steps listed in WP:DISPUTE in an attempt to resolve this issue, starting with WP:ASSIST. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)