Userspace deletion
I assumed, correctly I hope, that you wanted User talk:Viriditas/The Magpie (Monet) to be deleted as well. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas. I saw your ANI complaint about edit warring on this article by User:Tillman. I have not decided yet whether to comment at ANI or do anything at all, but I want to run this idea by you. It does seem that Tillman broke 1RR on 8 June. If this complaint were being considered at AE as a violation of ARBCC, we would probably go back more than one day when looking at reverts. The following analysis suggests that you reverted three times in 24 hours beginning at 23:49 on 5 June. If I've counted correctly, both you and Tillman have broken 1RR in the last few days:
- Page: Climatic Research Unit email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Time reported: 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 23:49, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Books */ Non-notable, self-published book removed")
- 00:36, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Rv Tillman's misundersanding of the concept of "undue". This is fully supported, summarizes the mainstream opinion, and is considered an expert source on PR campaigns")
- 13:51, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Media reception */ Remove meaningless, unencyclopedic climate change denial statements per talk")
I've already removed adjacent edits from the list, so this is the bottom line. One way the ANI could be closed would be to block both you and Tillman. That might not be totally fair because it seems you've been trying harder than he has to get a negotiated result.
ARBCC issues tend to cause a lot of upset. I wonder if you would consider setting up an WP:RFC to settle the outstanding issues on this article. If necessary admins could protect the article while the RFC is open. If the ANI complaint were closed that way no blocks would have to be issued. Let me know what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not following you, Ed. I only made one revert at 00:36, 6 June 2011. My edits at 23:49, 5 June and 13:51, 6 June are not reverts by any definition of the term. Why do you count them as reverts? Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the definition of a revert in WP:Edit warring: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. In the above list of three edits, two of them have 'Remove' in the edit summary, and the third one has 'Rv.' Removing material that a previous editor has added to the article is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- My removal of material at 23:49 and 13:51 did not undo the actions of another editor, nor could it possibly be defined as a revert. This will become even clearer Ed, if you review Help:Reverting. My two edits at 23:49 and 13:51 neither restored a previous version of the page, nor did it reverse the action of another editor. It was a unique set of edits, classified under the same definition of adding and deleting content, which can only be defined as a revert if it meets the criteria stated above. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me your definition of a revert does not match the one used at WP:EW. The current edit warring policy says nothing about restoring a previous version of the page. (Help:Reverting is a piece of help text and it appears not to match the current policy). EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is Wikipedia's definition of a revert, not my own and it is in parity with EW. EW says a revert "means undoing the actions of another editor" which I did once, not three times as you claim above. That definition is part of the accepted one embedded in the edit warring policy, since restoring a previous version is implicit in undoing the actions of another editor. In other words, nothing I have said here conflicts with EW. You appear to be making the strange suggestion that the word "remove" implies or means a "revert". If that is what you are saying, then we have a serious problem. Editors can safely remove, delete, alter, modify, and change content without ever making a single revert. Are we on the same page yet? Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your personal opinion, but I believe it disagrees with the policy. You can get a more official ruling if you want to submit the war for adjudication at WP:AN3 or WP:AE. I think I've done my bit by trying for a diplomatic solution; I see that it didn't work. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, this is not my personal opinion. The word revert means to "Return to (a previous state, condition, practice, etc.)" It is the very definition of the word, and this definition is precisely how we use it on Wikipedia. In other words, "undoing the actions of another editor" means "restoring a previous version of the page". Is this making sense to you? There is nothing about what I've said here that disagrees with policy. It is what the word means and how we use it. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your personal opinion, but I believe it disagrees with the policy. You can get a more official ruling if you want to submit the war for adjudication at WP:AN3 or WP:AE. I think I've done my bit by trying for a diplomatic solution; I see that it didn't work. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is Wikipedia's definition of a revert, not my own and it is in parity with EW. EW says a revert "means undoing the actions of another editor" which I did once, not three times as you claim above. That definition is part of the accepted one embedded in the edit warring policy, since restoring a previous version is implicit in undoing the actions of another editor. In other words, nothing I have said here conflicts with EW. You appear to be making the strange suggestion that the word "remove" implies or means a "revert". If that is what you are saying, then we have a serious problem. Editors can safely remove, delete, alter, modify, and change content without ever making a single revert. Are we on the same page yet? Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me your definition of a revert does not match the one used at WP:EW. The current edit warring policy says nothing about restoring a previous version of the page. (Help:Reverting is a piece of help text and it appears not to match the current policy). EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- My removal of material at 23:49 and 13:51 did not undo the actions of another editor, nor could it possibly be defined as a revert. This will become even clearer Ed, if you review Help:Reverting. My two edits at 23:49 and 13:51 neither restored a previous version of the page, nor did it reverse the action of another editor. It was a unique set of edits, classified under the same definition of adding and deleting content, which can only be defined as a revert if it meets the criteria stated above. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the definition of a revert in WP:Edit warring: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. In the above list of three edits, two of them have 'Remove' in the edit summary, and the third one has 'Rv.' Removing material that a previous editor has added to the article is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)