User talk:Vfrickey/Archive 14

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please examine the talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin. Softlavender broke WP:Civil first, then imposed requests for additional sources to verify the classification of "Orsinia" as a Ruritarian setting that weren't imposed on the other two editors in that section. I tried to resolve these issues, I supplied two additional references which affirmed the point I was making, and my edits were changed in complete absence of a consensus. The other two editors changed what I'd set down with no consensus at all, and Softlavender escalated the "edit war," if one existed.

The act which seems to have precipitated this warning to me was an attempt to be conciliatory and remove certain citations as Softlavender requested earlier in the article talk page. This provoked a reaction completely at odds with WP:Good faith in which I was falsely accused of edit-warring - after making a change that Softlavender requested earlier.

I am personally going to assume Softlavender isn't gaming the system here (because I DO observe WP:Good Faith).

I am, however, following the guidance in the warning above to protest the false statement that I engaged in disruptive editing or edit-warring. I have advised the user Softlavender on that editor's talk page as instructed. loupgarous (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin Softlavender just ordered me not to remove citations in the article which I had placed there originally. My reaction was "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits?" Then I placed the notice which I'd earlier placed on Softlavender's talk page informing Softlavender that Softlavender is the subject of an Administrative Noticeboard/Incident discussion. loupgarous (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So far the only response has been utter justification of Softlavender's conduct. Fine, this is Athenian democracy at work and Softlavender's pals will show up to pile on - and nothing changes. That, I can do without. loupgarous (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I went out for a couple of hours and came back to see all this. While Softlavender's handling of this was aggressive, you did in fact edit war. You saw that I had already agreed with Softlavender's Talk page suggestion to shorten the Le Guin information (I had previously mentioned that it was too long), but instead of engaging on the Talk page and asking about the content that you wanted to put back into the article, you just added it yourself. I see from all the conversations above that you are not a complete newbie, so it is disappointing that you failed to use the WP:MOS and proper wiki-markup, and even more disappointing that you failed to go to the Talk page to try to understand why other editors were disagreeing with you. I'm not a "pal" of Softlavender (indeed, we have disagreed on content in the past), and as far as I know, neither is anyone at the Admin's noticeboard. That noticeboard is read widely, and I have never seen any of the names who responded to your complaint. Instead, what you are failing to see is that everyone agreed that your own actions were at fault. I suggest that you read the WP:MOS, WP:Edit war and WP:RS, and WP:Cheatsheet. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Only by experimentation do we find the truth. You were civil to me, I was civil to you. Thank you for your candor. Best of luck in your future endeavors. loupgarous (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)