Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 2/23/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If nobody answers his comments on the talk page,
he has made his case.
Here's how I would handle it.
Thank you for answering fairly.
If my bolds on an article are reverted by regular
editors, especially
more then one, I would assume by the reverts themselves that there is
no consensus for my bolds. I might make a polite query on the talk
page but my next move would be to "go play elsewhere".
It probably took a little time here before you came to that conclusion.
Newbies are not born with this skill. It needs to be politely discussed
with them, and that can't be done with bureaucratic boilerplate on his
talk page. As a newbie you can have no idea who the "regular" editors are.
Polite queries are good, and it is good to wait at least 24 hours for a response,
preferably longer. Unfortunately what often happens when you repeat your bold after a
fair waiting period is that it is reverted again with no explanation by the same person
who then posts a nasty threat on your talk page, and refuses to discuss the matter despite
all your polite entreaties.
You see it's not important to me that one
particular edit in one
particular page sticks. I don't even watch the pages I edit. If the
edit sticks, fine. If it gets reverted, then hey that's life. Let
someone else go to war there. There's thousands of other articles to
read and edit. (most of my edits have so far been minor ones anyway)
It's not a problem with most minor edits, and I agree that keeping a
long list of watched pages is not particularly productive.
I think every editor, especially newbies, need to ask
themselves this
question. "Am are here to help the project and make enwikipedia a
better encyclopedia or am I here to get my point across in
[[Article]]?"
Other than for "especially newbies" I agree with you. I would come down
much harder on admins because they should know better.
Here's another quote from the "don't be a
dick" essay I posted earlier...
"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and
make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your
views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you
even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you
a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something
great, you become an impediment"
Certainly. Insisting on your own way and immediately collapsing from a
position that you believe to be wrong can both distance you from the
task of making a good encyclopedia. How far you go before giving up is
not going to be the same in every instance. How you do things is
important. I still believe that those who are thoroughly undisdickable
are a small minority.
Ec