User talk:Garycompugeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armitage wants to see you before you flatline.

Contents

[edit] Rtwise

I'm done with him. I've nothing more to say as he was basically dismissing NPOV as an obsolete contrivance. Once that that happened, it became extremely hard to assume good faith. -MasonicDevice (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. He will not listen to reason and sees conspiracy where there is none. You are wise to step back :)
And what's with the persistant charges of "cussing". The strongest language I've used was "hell" last week, or "beastly" on his talk page to describe the difficulty of reading a hacked up talk page? Slander, I tell you. :-P. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach inkblot test

Ward301 hasn't engaged in edit warring about the placement of the image yet... at least, no more than you have. I couldn't, in fairness, give him a warning without giving you and several others one as well. His latest comment was slightly uncivil, but not enough for me to become all that worried about at this point, especially given his obvious frustration. I might suggest a compromise on the placement of the image. Leave it where Ward et al want it, but change the caption to suit the section it is in. i.e.: Mention in the caption text that the images are traditionally kept secret because of fears it would spoil the results. They seem to have accepted that the image will be unhidden at this time, there really is no great use in fighting over something so trivial as image placement at this point. It serves to escalate the conflict needlessly. Resolute 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. His behavior was getting unacceptable and unconstructive which is why I backed off. Communication is on-going on talk page and mediation will likely follow.

[edit] 3RR

You've just violated the three-revert rule. You indicated in this edit that you were aware of the 3RR. Instead of reporting it, as a courtesy I'm giving you the opportunity to revert yourself (which doesn't count as a revert).

For future reference, you may find this helpful:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Jakew (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative I'm at three. Check my contribs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)

I count four in the last 24 hours:
  1. 23:41, April 9, 2008
  2. 01:04, April 10, 2008
  3. 18:11, April 10, 2008
  4. 22:37, April 10, 2008
Are you going to self-revert? Jakew (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems I missed the paste. Yes I've reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)
Ok, I saw. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, someone reported this to the 3RR noticeboard. I told them there about your self-revert, Garycompugeek. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Just to let you know, Gary, I've just added Esen et al. ("Concealed penis: rare complication of circumcision") to the medical analysis of circumcision article. Here is a link to the edit I made [1]. Jakew (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion is preferable to edit warring

Gary, you've made two reverts to circumcision today, with very unconstructive edit summaries such as "I disagree Jake" and "please look up the word disagree". Unfortunately, you've made no effort to explain why you feel this way in the relevant discussion, and indeed your have not contributed to that discussion since 18:03, May 30, 2008. Please remember that edit warring is not helpful, and remember that — in general — it's best to explain your reverts on the talk page. Jakew (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree discussion is preferable to edit war. I disagree with your conclusions which I have made abundantly clear on the discussion page that I have been quite active on. I believe the sourced material provides good balance to the previous statement above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)

Your disagreement is noted, obviously, but please don't be surprised if it is afforded relatively little weight in comparison to WP policy and reasoned argument. If you wish to influence consensus, you will need to address the arguments made. You may find this diagram helpful. Jakew (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The disagreement is about policy interpretation. I feel it is WP:UNDUE to leave out while you have the opposite view. Your interpretation carries no more weight than mine. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, I think you must mean something other than undue weight (which is about giving too much weight to a minority viewpoint), but perhaps that is poor phrasing. Jakew (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you seem to have abandoned the talk page discussion (you still haven't replied to my post of the 30th of May), and you haven't responded to any of the issues raised by Coppertwig on the 1st of June. In spite of this, you've managed to revert four times in about 26 hours ([2] [3] [4] [5]). Could you please try to gain consensus for your views instead of edit warring? Jakew (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abandoned the talk page? I am all over it. Just because I prefer not to bang my head against the wall does not mean my opinions have changed. As far as consensus goes, you do not appear to have it.

[edit] Re: 3rd party request

I have responded to your inquiry at my talk page. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please try to gain consensus

Gary, it is becoming urgent that you familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. What you are currently doing, on several occasions, is to express your opinion, then when it becomes apparent that there is no consensus for the change you advocate, you simply edit war instead of continuing to discuss. I refer, for example, to your reply to this talk page post. Instead of addressing the issues I raised, you dismiss them as "word games", make a number of incivil remarks, and then start edit warring again. Please stop. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk:)

Jake you are alone in your opinion. Perhaps you should gain WP:consensus before reverting. You are a very intelligent young man but play dumb when things don't match you POV. You must learn to compromise with other editors. As far as being uncivil, that's simply not true. We may disagree but I have never been mean to you. You must admit you do act like the gatekeeper of this article. Maybe you should take a step back and let others contribute or not... either way I implore you to remember we all have opinions and must work together. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Gary, I'm not sure why you think I'm alone in my opinion. Coppertwig, for example, has expressed agreement with retaining the WHO paragraph in the lead.[6] In any case, in the context of article talk pages, consensus tends to mean a decision more-or-less acceptable to all, rather than a majority vote.
Secondly, I repeat my plea for you to familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. The basic idea, as Coppertwig has explained is that the stable state of an article is assumed to have rough consensus (as it should: you, I, and others worked hard to find a compromise on that paragraph previously), and one needs a consensus to change it (one can be bold, of course, but if faced with an equally bold revert, the proper thing is to think "hmm, I guess there isn't consensus. Better discuss instead"). See Talk:Circumcision#Paragraph in lead as an example of how to go about achieving that consensus - yes, it involved a lot of discussion, but we got there in the end. And as I recall, not a single revert occurred during that entire process.
It should have been perfectly obvious from the talk page discussion that there was no consensus to delete that paragraph, and indeed there was less support for removing just that paragraph than for, say, removing both paragraphs or Coppertwig's suggestion (the latter might have had some chance of succeeding). Instead of demonstrating good faith by implementing a proposed compromise, you tried to force through a change that you wanted to make, knowing that there was no consensus for it. When combined with the fact that this came immediately after you effectively abandoned the discussion, that's not good.
I may be wrong, but I sense that you're frustrated by long discussions. To be completely open with you, there are times when I am, too. But often they're necessary, particularly in the case of difficult articles like circumcision, and one has to be patient. Jakew (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gary, for your reply. It is also appreciated. Image:Smile.png Jakew (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)