Content deleted Content added
Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) →Arguments: re |
→Arguments: re |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:::::::{{ec}}Also, a 1RR exemption should be made, in my opinion, for blatantly misplaced comments, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&diff=prev&oldid=440245262 this], where 2RR or 3RR would suffice (this user did it twice, and those comments were not on the top of the talk page. I discussed with the user after the 2nd revert). I'd like to try 2RR since I don't get into these revert conflicts as often as some other users under 1RR. But, I will be OK with 1RR with those exemptions.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::{{ec}}Also, a 1RR exemption should be made, in my opinion, for blatantly misplaced comments, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&diff=prev&oldid=440245262 this], where 2RR or 3RR would suffice (this user did it twice, and those comments were not on the top of the talk page. I discussed with the user after the 2nd revert). I'd like to try 2RR since I don't get into these revert conflicts as often as some other users under 1RR. But, I will be OK with 1RR with those exemptions.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::LOL, you're overthinking this. Let someone else move a misplaced comment the second time, it's not like you're the only talk page stalker. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes#top|talk]]) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::LOL, you're overthinking this. Let someone else move a misplaced comment the second time, it's not like you're the only talk page stalker. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes#top|talk]]) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::That aside, I think a 2RR restriction is best because this isn't as bad as some editors with 1RR.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I know you're skeptical on this, Jasper, but please trust me on this. 1RR will save you a lot of headache. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes#top|talk]]) 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal == |
== Proposal == |
Revision as of 03:45, 20 July 2011
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where did all my messages go?!?
Peek-a-boo | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
- Archiv'd. Page was getting too long. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh... jolly good show, old chap! Anyway, I need to catch some Zzz now... and I can't be bothered by someone stirring the hornet's nest again on WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185. Good morning, good day, good afternoon, good evening or goodnight to you, wherever you are! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Arguments
(re to your question) Both, especially the one under Glass House Warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Regarding the Glass House Warning, Eagles, Doug and Sitush all make sensible points, I would listen to their advice. In general, it's bad form to template somebody for doing what you're doing, especially if you're doing it more than they are! I may have suggested this before, but it's better to discuss one-on-one with a good faith editor on a talk page rather than relying on templates, warnings and edit summaries to get your point across.
- Regarding the other discussion, I agree with Eagles that it shows disrespect to the WMF employers to remove their comments with an edit summary. You're allowed to delete comments from your talk page, but in my opinion, comments like the ones MRG and Phillippe left are better left and replied to.
- Does this help? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Giving this some more thought, I think you should hold yourself to 1RR for a while, unless you're dealing with an obvious bad-faith editor (e.g. vandalism). If someone makes an edit you don't like and you decide to undo it, don't undo it a second time if they reinstate it. Start a conversation on the talk page instead. I'm afraid if you don't do this you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't approach 3RR. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm trying myself at 2RR restrictions. My only concern with Eagles'comments is that he tends to make me think he's not assuming good faith with what I'm doing. His comment on his talk page seems to be especially the case here. I strongly deny I have a IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, which he's been accusing me of ever since he first talked about my issues to me. I personally feel that 1RR is comin' soon for me. After all, I am not going to use disruptive editing to make a point.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confident Eagles thinks you're acting in good faith, just that you need to improve a few things. Would you be willing to voluntarily adhere to 1RR, starting now? I believe that would go a long way in preventing disputes. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think 2RR is good enough for now, since it's usually the second revert that triggers discussion. If I do have a 1RR restriction, there have to be exemptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios, which I'll stick to 3RR rule with. Sound good? (Concerning Eagles247, that comment on his talk page seems to be a simple result of impatience, and it shouldn't be chastised unless it gets worse than that. He did personally say that he couldn't be my mentor due to that impatience. Glad I have you and Kansan :) ).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your suggestion that you go with 1RR with 3RR exceptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios sounds great, let's go with that. 28bytes (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Also, a 1RR exemption should be made, in my opinion, for blatantly misplaced comments, like this, where 2RR or 3RR would suffice (this user did it twice, and those comments were not on the top of the talk page. I discussed with the user after the 2nd revert). I'd like to try 2RR since I don't get into these revert conflicts as often as some other users under 1RR. But, I will be OK with 1RR with those exemptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL, you're overthinking this. Let someone else move a misplaced comment the second time, it's not like you're the only talk page stalker. 28bytes (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- That aside, I think a 2RR restriction is best because this isn't as bad as some editors with 1RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL, you're overthinking this. Let someone else move a misplaced comment the second time, it's not like you're the only talk page stalker. 28bytes (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Also, a 1RR exemption should be made, in my opinion, for blatantly misplaced comments, like this, where 2RR or 3RR would suffice (this user did it twice, and those comments were not on the top of the talk page. I discussed with the user after the 2nd revert). I'd like to try 2RR since I don't get into these revert conflicts as often as some other users under 1RR. But, I will be OK with 1RR with those exemptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your suggestion that you go with 1RR with 3RR exceptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios sounds great, let's go with that. 28bytes (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think 2RR is good enough for now, since it's usually the second revert that triggers discussion. If I do have a 1RR restriction, there have to be exemptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios, which I'll stick to 3RR rule with. Sound good? (Concerning Eagles247, that comment on his talk page seems to be a simple result of impatience, and it shouldn't be chastised unless it gets worse than that. He did personally say that he couldn't be my mentor due to that impatience. Glad I have you and Kansan :) ).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confident Eagles thinks you're acting in good faith, just that you need to improve a few things. Would you be willing to voluntarily adhere to 1RR, starting now? I believe that would go a long way in preventing disputes. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm trying myself at 2RR restrictions. My only concern with Eagles'comments is that he tends to make me think he's not assuming good faith with what I'm doing. His comment on his talk page seems to be especially the case here. I strongly deny I have a IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, which he's been accusing me of ever since he first talked about my issues to me. I personally feel that 1RR is comin' soon for me. After all, I am not going to use disruptive editing to make a point.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Giving this some more thought, I think you should hold yourself to 1RR for a while, unless you're dealing with an obvious bad-faith editor (e.g. vandalism). If someone makes an edit you don't like and you decide to undo it, don't undo it a second time if they reinstate it. Start a conversation on the talk page instead. I'm afraid if you don't do this you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't approach 3RR. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposal
Unrelated to the above, I have made what looks like a successful proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require Captcha for Special:EmailUser. Is this enough consensus for the proposal to move forward? If so, how would it move forward?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) WP:Requests for comment is your next step. (I think) --Σ talkcontribs 03:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)