User talk:Bobchalk

Wikipedia
There is a "three-revert" rule on Wikipedia. By continuing to revert, you will be breaking this rule. -- Curps 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The size limit for individual pages is a suggestion, not a hard limit or rule. For a current event, it's probably best to keep everything on one page, so in my personal opinion any splitting is premature. If it was done, it should wait at least a week or so. By the way, the "three-revert" rule applies to one person reverting three times, not three people reverting once. -- Curps 22:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An edit war like this can cause genuine contributions to be lost, if people accidentally revert away a change that was made between two reverts. When you run into opposition from multiple people like this, you should not persist. -- Curps 22:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Vandalism_in_progress -- Curps 22:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From your user history, I can see that this is the first day you have started to contribute to Wikipedia (at least under the name "Bobchalk"). Editing on Wikipedia works by consensus. In general, you can't force through a change singlehandedly if multiple people oppose it. That's just part of the way Wikipedia works. Try to concentrate on adding information to the article for now. After the "current news" status of this article has died down, the split you propose might make more sense. At that time, you could call for another vote on the discussion page. -- Curps 22:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response to Curps comments
Curps. If you check through the history of the page you will see that it was in fact Cantus that started the revert war in response to what I personally considered to be a sensible change to the page. He reverted several times before any kind of poll was taken. I am happy to go with a consensus but I feel that Cantus was trying to strong-arm his decision with underhand tactics (including continual reverts). He does have a history of this behaviour Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco. The fact that the decision to split the page in exactly the same way that I descibed was taken soon after strengthens my belief that I acted in the correct way, although I should probably have resisted involving myself in Cantus's revert war (has I known his history at that point I would have simply reported him to an administrator instead).

I note that you, Cantus and myself have now all being blocked in response to this episode.

Bobchalk 13:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block
I have blocked Bobchalk for 24 hours for egregiously violating the three-revert rule. Warnings were provided earlier on this talk page. David Newton 23:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now the block has been removed. David Newton 00:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Upon receiving the email from you, I have reviewed the situation and it would appear that your complaints are at the very least justified. I have blocked Cantus and Curps for 24 hours as well. BTW you should note that your earlier moves to split the page have now been done with community support. A fresh poll was taken on it and received large support. I will try to keep a close eye on this page and I will protect it if necessary. Given that the news about the earthquake is now likely to be changing less quickly it is less egregious to protect it really. David Newton 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * David, see Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake/Article_organization. No less than five people reverted Bobchalk's change, and several others expressed opposition by poll.  By the time I got involved in the edit war, Bobchalk had already reverted ten times.


 * Yes a second poll on splitting was taken later. In fact it was initiated and supported by most of the very people who had voted against the idea in the first place... including Cantus, BanyanTree and myself.  People are willing to change their minds if circumstances change, and I wish Bobchalk had worked with us instead of persisting in making a total of 15 or 16 reversions.  Anyway, let's move on. -- Curps 20:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I wish that Cantus had tried to work with me when I tried to make a reasonable change, rather than trying to force through his own agenda, as he has a long history of doing Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco.


 * Curps. The fact is that you also breached the rules that you preach so energetically and so are just as guilty of wrongdoing as I, or indeed Cantus, was. If you are claiming that you were righting a wrong then I can claim the same and we are back where we started. Bobchalk 21:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are focusing only on Cantus. However, a total of five people reverted you at least one time each.  Reverting 15 or 16 times against multiple opponents is perhaps a bit more "wrongdoing" than reverting 4 or 5 times against a single opponent, don't you think?  -- Curps 09:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Not Directly Affected" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake Not Directly Affected. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)