June 2014
edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --John (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I require further explanation i think you may be in error here as the revert you made was to some other editors change. in addition you give no reasoning which is week sauce and lazy. I think i made a reasonable case for why the EU should not be listed on this page. my edit does not change the content in any meaningful way it simply eliminated euro centrism and euro fanboyism. I would be ok with including the EU if its member states were removed from the rest of the list and listed separately, but no intellectually honest person would call the EU a country
Ezorb (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly. You've edited six articles to remove information, based on your opinion that the EU doesn't belong there. You have made no attempt to gain consensus to do so. As consensus is how we work here, if you do this again, you'll probably be blocked from editing for a period to prevent further disruptive edits. I hold no opinion about whether your edits were "right" or "wrong", I am just explaining that you cannot edit like this. --John (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Assume good faith
I am simply fixing what I see to be a biased inclusion of only one trade block, in accordance with the NPOV policy. I am far from the only one who see this as bias, so I think that this bit solidly qualifies.
I though that this thing worked by making your edit and stating your case, which I did. None of the reverts make any case at all, changes without explanation are "disruptive editing". I find no consensus on the talk page, and any argument I would make has already been expressed better than I could, is there another page I should read? Why does this page get to stand "as is" until consensus is reached? Would the page not be better served by removing controversial data until such time? At what point does this get fixed, if I "cant edit like this", who decides, you? Ok lets go, this has been bugging me for years.
I don't think that 6 edits over X years constitutes disruption, but you do. so I guess that some opinions do count. I also feel that by issuing warnings you ARE expressing your editorial opinion via the asymmetric power to issue threats. I dare not make any further edits now, so your opinion wins. I feel the chill.
If your beef is one of editing style, you could have tried to educate me first, just sent a note asking that I use other methods and why its important and offered some additional reading. If its not up to me to edit, why encourage or even allow it?
Please un-flag me.Ezorb (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Making six edits and having them reverted by other users should be a clue that these edits are not good ones. Please take your suggestions to article talk. I don't know what "please un-flag me" means. --John (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats it, your not going to address any other questions and the issue at hand?Ezorb (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Making an argument in edit summaries is better than nothing, but it is far better to make a convincing argument at one of the article talk pages and let other people (who actually wrote the articles and so have an investment in them) have their say. Making one or two bold edits is absolutely fine, but making a bunch of them is a mistake. I am here to help you to find a better way. Would you like me to find you the right place and even start a discussion for you? It is your view that including the EU in these lists is "controversial" but you must convince other editors that this is the case. Obviously we make an exception for obvious vandalism and for unsourced material on living people, but your edits do not fall into either area. I am sorry if I have come across as heavy-handed and have hurt your feelings, but I would not want you to think these edits were OK. --John (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- See the discussion at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)#EU. --John (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)