Quakeshake

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vulva. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Gwernol 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did use the talk page to make my point before I changed the article!--Quakeshake (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you did not achieve a consensus with the other editors there, and you are engaged in an edit war to enforce your beliefs about the image to be used on the article. If you cannot form a consensus on the talk page you may not simply ignore the wishes of other editors and insist on your own preferred version. Thanks, Gwernol 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But I posted several arguments on repeated occasions and I got no real useful reply. If only one single user had come up with an argument why to use the previous picture, I would have been more than willing to discuss. But all I got was something like "..its somewhere on the page, go find it yourself". Well, I couldn't find a reason.--Quakeshake (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you haven't got a satisfactory explanation, that's a reason to keep talking. It is never a reason to simply go ahead and ignore the opinions of other editors on the talk page. I have to say, its reasonable for others to ask you to take the few minutes to find and read through the earlier discussion of the image. If you aren't prepared to do that, why do you expect other editors to take the time to engage you in serious discussion? Putting that aside, I see that at least two editors expressed their opinions about why the other image is preferable. Please don't simply ignore the opinions of others. You might also want to contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It generally isn't a good idea to become so fixated on a single image in a single article. Best, Gwernol 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I really understand your point and I guess you're right. But in this case I really don't want to take the blame. I was willing to talk from the start. At first I got an argument about misspelling which was nonsense cause there are non. Then the image was somehow "unencyclopedic", but nobody could eyplain how and why. Next thing was: you'll find it somewhere on the disc-page. Well, neither could I find it nor do I understand why this person couldn't just write in one sentence why he objects this change (which is a matter of 30 sec.).--Quakeshake (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)