User talk:Pumpjack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pumpjack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

[edit] Kish Island

The page is protected due to the edit war, and I've opened a discussion on this at Talk:Kish Island. Please try to resolve the issue in the future with discussion as opposed to edit warring. Khoikhoi 08:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I think one problem is that you have the mentality of "I am right, the other party is wrong." Please try to have an open mind when it comes to solving edit conflicts. I recommend that you try to suggest a compromise version that everyone agrees upon. This is why I protected the page - because people kept reverting to their versions without discussion. Khoikhoi 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey KhoiKhoi - Thanks for being frank. I'm really not trying to have an "I'm right and you're wrong mentality." I've tried to suggest different phrasing, openly stated that my original post was not perfect, have asked to be met half way, etc. --Pumpjack (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Mass-spamming (disruptive canvassing) all these users is totally inappropriate, and is a blockable offense. Don't do it again. This is not the solution to your problem. I already explained to you that you should follow the dispute resolution process. It appears that you've messaged all these users only because you want them to take your side in the dispute. This isn't a "you against them" sort of thing, and I will block you next time you do this. Khoikhoi 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Khoi Khoi, thanks again for keeping me on track here. To be honest, I though I was following the dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion. I had no idea this policy existed. --Pumpjack (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Khoi Khoi, wait a second. I have read the policy, and I'm not sure I committed disruptive canvassing. I only posted this to the discussion board of a few editors, maybe 5 or 6? The policy begins by saying that the practice is acceptable. Further down in the policy, it gives the example of posting a 5 page essay to 20 users. I can see this scenario as disruptive. But how is what I have done in any way disruptive canvassing when I only requested a third opinion from 5 or 6 editors? Can you please give me more specific feedback on why it is a violation? --Pumpjack (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Try nine. And I am curious, how did you select the users that you messaged? Are they all part of a certain group on Wikipedia, do they have similar userboxes? You picked nine users who you thought would have the same or a similar POV to your own. Would you mind if Axamir or InputPoem spammed all the Iranian users to help them out with the dispute? It becomes chaos when you gather people like this. It is a violation of WP:CANVASS because the audience you spammed goes under "Partisan" (see the table).
By the way, I really am curious how you found out about all these users, since you haven't been on Wikipedia for that long. Khoikhoi 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They do not, to my knowledge, belong to a specific Wikipedia group. I chose them from math articles, political articles, historical articles, etc. I wanted fresh eyes from all walks of life. To be honest, I was afraid I would come back to find that all of them had told me I was completely wrong, and should give up! It was a risk. This article needs new perspective. It's OK to include an advertisement for a multi-million dollar hotel project, but not a case as notable as Levinson’s? I just think we need more involvement here for balance and added perspective.
So, if I read the Dispute Resolution Process closely, I should have gone to the Third Party message board and requested a review? Would that have been the appropriate course of action? --Pumpjack (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on whether or not it should be included. There was a similar debate about including a mention of Natalee Holloway in the Aruba article. Yes, the third party message board would be a good idea (if you think all other previous options have failed). Another option would be Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Khoikhoi 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)