Talk:Self-arrest

July 2007

This article could really use a photo illustrating the relevant technique(s). 75.144.10.113 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

September 2015

I made a number of changes, clearly described in edit summaries, which vastly improved this article. Now a series of utter morons have taken it upon themselves to revert my work for no reason whatsoever. I'd ask them to explain themselves here but they have no possible explanation for what they are doing, so I just put this here to note how some people of appallingly limited intellectual ability are here not to build an encyclopaedia but simply to play some kind of bizarre game. 186.9.130.243 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summaries appear to indicate ownership. Being bold is one thing, but when challenged, you must defer to a consensus. Instead, you've edit-warred and accused people of sockpuppetry (while evading a block yourself). clpo13_(talk) 07:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries indicate nothing of the sort. You never bothered to try to find a consensus; you and others simply reverted for no reason other than to provoke and harass. 186.9.132.15 (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"For fuck's sake. What the fuck are you doing? Do you have ANY fucking clue what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to look like?" and "haha, woooo another one! Yet another clueless idiot who doesn't know what an encyclopaedia is but has the arrogance to edit one anyway" (that doesn't even mention the edit summaries that have been removed). You often seem to get upset when someone undoes your work. clpo13_(talk) 08:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burninthruthesky: @Clpo13: @186.9.130.34: @Iryna Harpy: I have already had to block three editors and protect the page to stop the edit war in progress here. The blocks will expire in 24 hours, except for the anon who has been blocked for a week for harrassment. When the blocks expire, please use this talk page to come to a consensus about how the article should be written. Karl Dickman ^talk 08:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Karl Dickman: Thanks for the protection. It is clear to me we are dealing with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, who is blocked. WP:EVADE says, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.", which is what I did. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The block is due to expire on March 11 2018. In the meantime, may I suggest the article is restored to the existing consensus version? Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Karl Dickman. Oh no, you reverted to the version preferred by the sock. More important, there is no reason for permanent protection because there is no any content dispute/disagreements between participants of the project (socks do not count). Making a semi-protecion would be fine, however. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not make clear that protection, like the blocks, would expire after 24 hours. Karl Dickman ^talk 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

His abusiveness notwithstanding, the version as edited by IP is clearly superior to the one half of Wikipedia reverts to. WP:IAR and all that. To wit, it conforms to WP:REFERS, WP:GENDER, WP:NOTAMANUAL, WP:SELFREF, WP:WEASEL -- if I get the alphabet soup right -- unlike the old one. No such user (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after reading this page and other comments, I suggest to keep current version by the IP and use it for further improvements. I do not think it is "clearly superior", but at least their changes are not unreasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)