Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As anyone can see, I explained my positions on the ongoing Sep11 and Enclave disputes. On List of island nations any disputes have settled down. So what is this supposed to be evidence of? On Nagaland the edit summaries prove only that Simonides was rude and refusing to explain himself. On Sep11 my opponent (VeryVerily) didn't say one word on the talk page! So it wasn't me who made no effort to resolve these issues. I will accordingly remove this frivolous RfC after the 48 hours are over. Gzornenplatz 22:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) [comment moved by ugen64 from endorsement area]

The 3 revert rule has no "he started it" clause. If he started it, ask him about his questionable edits; don't just jump in and start reverting. NEVER, in any case, should you have reverted six or seven times (as I provided evidence of you doing). Those revert wars are a *history* of your past actions, a recent history that is still continuing (I have added three pieces of evidence since the RFC started), and has caused at least three pages to be protected. ugen64 22:27, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The rule says: "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute." So the question is where have you and another person tried and failed to resolve a dispute you had with me? You weren't even involved in the edit wars in question, so you can't bring any such evidence. Gzornenplatz 22:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

This applies to none of the above, so unless two of the above people actually provide evidence of trying to resolve the same dispute, the page should be deleted. Gzornenplatz 20:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) [comment moved by ugen64 from endorsement area]

I was pretty certain I'd find an RfC on Gzornenplatz, because he was so exceptionally difficult on the Nagaland page (my first encounter with him) that I could perceive it had little to do with disagreement and more to do with his obstinate desire to be in the right - and what do you know...

Yes, I read the comments about me here, and I fully admit to losing patience on occasion with people who make nonsense edits or who do not accept invitations to discussion (particularly since I am not at home and make edits from net cafes and the like) - I'm sorry if I was a little too unpleasant. That said, my long-term contributions will show I usually stay away from political articles, or, having started with some, I go to great lengths to defend any edits I make. I always prefer debate/argument to reverts, and I am not new to that procedure - read my Talk page for a sampling. I also try to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and try to look at the broader picture (I requested the page protection; I posted about the map at the VP; I told G-platz and Davidcannon to inform themselves and, if they still had objections, to state them on the Talk page) - my issue with the Nagaland article didn't have to do with Nagaland itself, or G-platz, but the incorrect India map which was on display for two days to the general public since it was a bolded article in In The News; I later noticed the incorrect map was used by default, and brought up the topic in the Village Pump - it's understandable why most people outside South Asia think the incorrect map is the right one: it's the most widely disseminated map but only reflects certain foreign policies rather than any objective state of affairs.

But none of this justifies G-platz's repeated reverts or refusal to discuss his objections (till the THIRD revert that prompted the SECOND protection of Nagaland today, AFTER a discussion had begun with Peter O and Davidcannon; the initial antagonism between the latter and myself was quickly defused simply because we bothered to state our opinions.) As I said, his rudeness and pre-emptive reverts had nothing to do with any views, at least none he bothered to explain, and his brusque, repetitive "you first" rebuttals were very immature, irritating and un-Wikipedia-like. I can't comment on his other contributions but I hope he doesn't kill his and everybody else's time in this fashion. -- Simonides 21:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plain bizarre. The history of edit summaries and his comment on Talk:Nagaland show that Simonides is not interested in civilized discourse. Moreover he is simply pushing an Indian government POV, to the extent that he vandalized the page by removing a map simply because it doesn't show Indian territorial claims on Kashmir, which is on the opposite side of India than the state of Nagaland which the article is about and which is indisputably correctly depicted in the map. His claim that the map is "incorrect" does not get truer with repetition. The map merely reflects the de facto borders, which is the standard practice that is used for low-detail maps of the region everywhere in the world except India and Pakistan themselves who of course push their claims. In India it's actually illegal to publish the "wrong" map (which once even prevented Britannica sales in India), but that is hardly a concern to us. Gzornenplatz 21:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

As I wrote, this user has little or no concern for any actual views stated but prefers to carry on an argument for the sake of doing so. The image that was removed temporarily (explained right away on Talk page) was acceptable in terms of political correctness, and was what I requested (as anyone who follows the time stamps and arguments will notice) - it was simply distorted and needed minor correction, which I explained at length - kind of like publishing a US map in which Florida is shown perpendicularly rather than at a slighter angle away from the continent. Further, as I'm going to mention above, G-platz has himself engaged in vandalism as of now, since he deleted a comment of mine from the Requests for Page Protection page; this is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Simonides 22:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could have reverted the "distorted" map to its previous state. Instead you entirely removed it, which you obviously did for the reasons I stated. And I removed your request for page protection only after the page was already protected. Gzornenplatz 22:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

The distorted map, as mentioned, was preferable to the "previous state" (if you had any genuine concern for NPOV you would realise why, and you would not have been reverting the notice of inaccuracy in the caption - but you merely enjoy making reverts no matter what the context); your conjectures about my motivations are as pointless as your arguments and reverts; your removal of the protection request is as rude as everyone here confirms your other actions are. Thank you for consolidating the RfC. -- Simonides 12:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The fact that not everyone is saint does not mean that everyone should ignore all the rules. The fact that VeryVerily or anyone has engaged in revert wars is not an excuse for Gzornenplatz to act accordingly. It is not an excuse for ignoring the ongoing discussions, talk pages, established compromises or for offensive personal attacks. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:27, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)