User talk:87.189.121.82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, 87.189.121.82, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please be more civil in your edit summaries, and comments on editor talk pages. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm treated extremley uncivil here, so I lost my temper. Sorry. --87.189.121.82 (talk)
Where are you being treated uncivil? On other pages you've edited? I apologize for anyone that has treated you unfairly, we also have a rule of not "biting" the new comers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, on another page. I'm not a newcomer, and sadly, the reverse of that rule obviously applies to IPs. --87.189.121.82 (talk)
I believe that editors automatically assume "new", and consequently "ignorant of Wiki rules" when they see an IP address. It says that they must not frequent often enough to register, which means they probably don't know the rules anyway. But, there isn't a rule that says you have to register either, so there just ends up being a lot of assuming going on, which results in a lot of arguing - and as we've seen, the case of incivility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your description is somewhat accurate, but just in case I want to point out one thing: It is possible to judge an IP by its merits, not by its lack of a username.
Also, I think that IPs are treated badly because of the lack of social pressure. They are not part of the group, so rules do not apply. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Incredible Hulk (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, IPs are not taken seriously onless they 3RR. Sad but true.
So, since you think this is an edit war, why don't you let my version stand and discuss the issue? --87.189.121.82 (talk)
Why not the other way around? :) Unfortunately, I see that there are other editors that are more supportive of the bullet format than you. I understand the issue with the quote box, but bulleted cast listings are widely used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Because my version is supported by the MOS. WP:DEMOCRACY --87.189.121.82 (talk)
Consensus is imperfect. Nothing would be accomplished if everyone had to agree with one approach. In this case, multiple editors agree on one particular approach for this. In addition, how are you supported by MOS? Bullet formats are fully acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Straw Man I never said that my version would be final, just that it follows MOS and should thus be the basis for the discussion.
Did you even look at the MOS? Did you find any bullets in the section "Cast and crew information"? --87.189.117.71 (talk)

I warned you about 3RR. I'm afraid I'm going to have to file a report considering your disruptive approach against other editors opposing your opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do just that. You don't plan to write a report on the uncivil behaviour in the last days by you and others, do you? Ah no, didn't think you would. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
Actually, reviewing the reverts, you didn't surpass the 3RR limit. So I didn't file the report. However, I think the consensus is clear to support bullet format. The bullet formats allow separate areas of content without having to be related. As you can tell, the Norton paragraphs are connected. The content for each character are not. Hence, the bullet reflects the individual stance of each character passage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I think falsly claiming that someone breaks rules is a personal attack, is it not?
Also, WP:3RR clearly states that the number 3 is not set in stone. Clearly both of us (and some) broke 3RR.
Please don't draw the discussion about why you are wrong here, it belongs in the article discussion. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
I wouldn't consider it a personal attack; I corrected myself and did not file anything. In addition, this really should have gone to the discussion talk page for all of us at first. Edit warring through edit summaries obviously isn't clear-headed for any of us. Unfortunately, I think irregardless of edit warring or not, the consensus seems to outweigh your opinion regarding usage of the bullet format in the Cast section. If you feel that any editor has been unfavorable in their approach, you can file the relevant report. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you threatened me, did you not?
Sorry, I can't. Been there, done that, such reports from IPs are never taken seriously. You lot can inflict whatever you want to IPs, they are defenseless. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
I didn't threaten you, though. I would have gone through the 3RR process with or without (mistakenly) pointing out that you were in violation of 3RR. I have issued fair warning about 3RR, in any case. Anyway, if you believe that IPs lack credibility, why not register an account? Seems like it would save you grief, if you believe there's a lack of credibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Don't call it threat if that let you sleep better tonight.
You don't seem to understand: You think they lack credibility, I don't. I think everyone should be judged by its actions, not by its lack of a username. FWIW, I have an account (even a very old one), I just don't want to be part of a group such as the current editorship of Wikipedia. --87.189.117.71 (talk)

(outdent) Considering that violating 3RR is disruptive behavior, I don't believe I was inaccurate in describing the meaning of that breach. Like I've said, though, I was mistaken. Regarding IPs, I don't disagree with your perspective. I think that the fact that most disruptive edits come from IPs don't help the mindset, even if it's clearly not true in every case. Maybe it's just me, but having a user account seems appropriately contractual with an intention to edit Wikipedia. Of course, it's not imperative for all contributions to be centralized, but I think that the pros outweigh the cons. However, I'm not sure about the benefit when you reflect that the disdain goes both ways -- lack of respect for IPs, and your opposition to being part of Wikipedia's current editorship. How come this is the case? The situation at The Incredible Hulk is unfortunate, but conflict is inescapable in Wikipedia, even for those who just want to edit out of pure enjoyment of sharing knowledge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)