SandymcT
I just undid your edit. although I do agree that it needs to be cut down, on a page like the aa article it really should be discussed on the talk page before you remove entire studies. I will eco what 82.19.66.37 said and ask that you talk about it with other editors before removing content.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that three different editors who mostly disagree about everything have undone your changes. There's a consensus that you're doing something wrong. I suggest that you change things one line at a time, and let things settle down before you change the next line. PhGustaf (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Editors agree needs to change:
- "I do agree that it needs to be cut down" - Coffeepusher
- "I agree there is POV here." - Scarpy
- Editors before made big changes, little discussion, all ok:
- My change tiny, meaning not changed either. Wikipedia states:
- 'there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles', Be bold
-SandymcT (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but you cut out entire studies without discussion. and 3 different editors agreed that those spacific changes needed to be discussed.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- no it isn't a good faith edit, you are intentionaly disrupting wikipeida to make a point Coffeepusher (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- thank you for assume good faith! My change is discused - 1. section too long (agree) 2. section POV (agree), also a small change - open your mind. -SandymcT (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Three to One
editIt's worth noting that the three editors who have undone your work mostly disagree with each other. Coffeepusher is an AA supporter, and I'm an AA critic. Scarpy once annoyed me enough to get me blocked for six hours (reduced to five after I was polite to the admin involved), and you have to be pretty bad to get blocked for six hours. I repeat, make your changes a little at a time, and work them out on the talk page first. PhGustaf (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
i repeat,
- 'there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles', Be bold
who cares AA supporter/AA critic?
1. section too long (agree) 2. section POV (agree) 3. my change small
why not change? This is Wikipedia not bible, you dont make any arguement against.
'Three to One' - what! this is mafia???
The talk page we are refurring to is located on the Alcoholics Anonymous page, not here. list the sections you think should be removed, and we can discuss it point by point. however I really don't think you can get anywhere untill you do that and get some sort of consensus (which is another policy we have here). note your quotation, and see that this isn't one of those situations.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, edits can also be boldy reverted. Wikipedia works based on consensus. Please take this to Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- scarpy, my edits make good sense, i explained each, if you dont like then change. but revert, revert, revert is vandalism, you editers are like a gang protecting your bible, but your bible does not look right, a big section on 13step? what on earth?! is this a health warning from govenment, no, this is wikipedia!
- You seem like a nice enough girl, like you enjoy editing wikipedia, and your English is reasonably good. Anyway, for the record, I have always thought the Alcoholics Anonymous article was a pile of shit. I'm just less of a fan of how you decided to smear it. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, listen. mentioning reasons why on edit summary's isn't explination... it should be done on the talk page itself. the discussion of your edits is going on right now at [1] and if you don't want to participate then you have no reason to complain if your edits are removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Content Removal
edit
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alcoholics Anonymous, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Sandy, we have been trying to engage you in discussion, but you refuse to come to the talk page and work with other editors. any future blanking of content will be seen as disruptive to the prossess.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changes to article have been discussed on talk, but will explane againe.
- Criticism and contoversy section
- 1. section too long (agree) 2. section POV (agree)
- both agree by other editors, my edit correct to Wikipedia and copy checked.
- Continues reverts to good faith edit is vandalism.
-SandymcT (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- there is a consensus that you need to go to the talk page and be civil to us when explaining your edits (I suspect that this is your second language, so you may not understand that your behavior on the talk page has been insulting and rude. hence my explination on how to bring up edits on the talk page in a constructive mannor). instead you have chosen to tell us "there is a problem and I fixed it my way since you guys couldn't do it". your edits arn't good faith because you are ignoring input from the community and refusing to bring your edits up for consensus. we do agree with those two points, however that does not give you licence to do change the page without input from the community. yes the changes need to be made, but we need to discuss what those changes are going to be (and it is obvious that your version is not the one that should be done). we are willing to work with you, however we are not willing to let you change the page however you want. since you want to quote wiki rules, read through the policies and you will see we run off of consensus (a common agreement from all interested editors) not just bold edits. either follow these sudjestions, or go away, your current behavior hasn't been constructive to either wikipedia or your own goals. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Follwing warning was given by Coffeepusher in response to my warnng for same behavor: -SandymcT (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alcoholics Anonymous. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.
Since I feel we have come to an impass I have filled a report on Wikiquette alerts. you are welcome to place your side of the story on that page. the link is [2].Coffeepusher (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
edit