User talk:Kborer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please feel free to leave any questions or comments. You can also email me at wikipedia.20.rebork@spamgourmet.com


Contents

[edit] links

{{disambig}} WP:MOSDAB#The disambig notice Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace Kborer 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] notes


[edit] Hauskalainen has accused you of being my sockpuppet/meatpuppet!

Please take a look at [User_talk:Doopdoop#DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer] --Doopdoop (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

Kborer (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please be aware you have violated the WP:3RR policy on the Socialized medicine page. Please do not engage in an edit war. Redrocket (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to be aware a case has been opened against you at [1], apparently for your four edits to Socialized medicine that occurred within seven hours on March 2. Just letting you know. Redrocket (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slow-motion revert war on Socialized medicine

Kborer, I was delighted to see you taking the time to reply to comments in depth on the talk page, as I thought that perhaps it meant that you were finally interested in conducting discussion to consensus rather than continuing the slow-motion revert war on the lead section. As I was replying to your comments, where there was some indication that you were ready to compromise, I checked my watchlist to find that you had reverted to wording again that people had already objected to! It is not enough to post your responses as justification for resorting to objectionable wording. Could we please work out compromise wording before another wholesale change to the lead? If you are unwilling to do this, I will be forced to conclude that you are not really interested in the consensus process, and instead wish simply to be disruptive. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Every wording has been objected to, so I do not see how this is relevant. If I make several improvements to the article, and someone complains about one and reverts all of them, then when I defend that one improvement, I am going to restore all of the improvements. Kborer (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that "defending an improvement" does not equal reaching consensus on it. You might want to re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I'm far from a perfect exemplar of these guidelines, but I keep trying to improve my approach to them. In my mind, leaving a comment on a talk page, when there have been objections expressed by multiple editors, does not by itself resolve the issue and meet consensus, nor does it justify a wholesale revert. A pattern of this will be perceived as disruptive editing.
The problem I see is that there have been multiple objections, by multiple editors, to the version you first suggested at the beginning of March. And I acknowledge that you seem to have multiple issues with the current lead, but I'm doubtful that all of those issues and debates can be resolved in one fell swoop. May I suggest that a more piecemeal approach may be more constructive and more acceptable to the other editors? What's the most egregious problem, in your mind, with the lead as it is? If you can isolate that, perhaps you and I can work together on a proposed change to the lead that we could introduce together on the talk page, which might help us start building consensus instead of simply debating (and reverting) in circles. If there are other ways you can think of that we can work together on this, I'm open to suggestion. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) Welcome back! Sorry, but your version is not "better" and has no consensus. Please do not make wholesale changes to statements that have previously been objected to without first discussing them on the talk page. Thanks! --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. By better I meant more accurate, factually correct, etc. Hope that helps. Kborer (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)