User talk:ChazBeckett/Archives/2007/October

Reverts are hostile actions
My talk page is open and working fine. You do not own Tom Brady, so please discuss problems before trashing someones time and efforts. // Fra nkB 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never claimed to own this or any other article, but likewise there's no reason why an edit (which is all a revert is), needs to be discussed before being made. To be quite honest, I reverted your edits because I didn't think they improved the article. Your edit was huge, introducing a great deal of new text. After the edit TOC looked strange, the references were extremely wordy and the records weren't written very well. I have nothing against that information existing in the article, but it is difficult to edit in a collaborative manner when the edits are so large. I'd also suggest reading WP:BRD a at your convenience. Thanks, Chaz Beckett 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

''The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control. A cross between the harmonious editing club process and "Ignore all rules", it is particularly useful for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward, and will still work 'where standard dispute resolution has failed'. Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.   Reverting the TOC (which is in wide use to kill off ugly whitespace and TOC's appearing too low in articles) before questioning the inclusion on a talk page is preventing the very thing that needs discussed  'from being seen so others can reach a decision. In short, you unilaterally gave no one else an opportunity to see the format, and make up their own mind.''' In that, just reverting the formatting is an egregious and high-handed error of judgement and procedure. The appropriate action would be to raise the question on the talk, and provide a diff to the non formatted TOC version. Instead you acted with undue (juvenile seeming) haste&mdash;without even taking a day or so to consider the matter and perhaps poll others active on the page! Nice and considerate, aren't you? Great demonstration of mature patience and deliberation too.
 * Deleting no less than five cites is NOT a way to improve an article.
 * No quality editor considers reverts as anything but a goad or (with reluctance) a means of fighting vandalism. In the opinion of most of us who've been around here for years, their sole purpose is the later role, for reverts like yours are just asking for troubles. They lead to flame wars, and I've spent gobs of time mediating too many of those to ever respect anyone that employs them in a lazy ass way of controlling a version and its content.
 * WP:BRD as far as I can see is directly contradictory to many guidelines: "When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes which might be perceived as controversial: these cases are when BRD is most effective. (What other method failed here? Where did you attempt to elicit co-operation? Frankly, the whole thing is asking to create flame wars.)
 * WP:BRD is neither policy, not guideline, but at best an essay (and not even marked THAT!) that some that are of a juvenile bent are prone to quote, and which you yourself are in violation of, to wit:
 * Pro-actively making a revert without some GF attempt to first make a partial change is a slap in the face&mdash;a hostile act. It always has been, and always will be because it's a total rejection of the other editors contribution and time spent. It's inconsiderate behavior and attitudes like that that drive thousands of mature professionals away from contributing further to wikipedia, and it keeps the quality of the product way down from where it should be by now. Search Expert retention, and read that essay!    I spent probably close to an hour digging out cites, adding same and phrasing things, and you slough that contribution off like it's nothing and inconsequential&mdash; worse, you try to hide behind the figurative fig leaf of a flawed essay to justify what is clearly unacceptable behavior in most all pages on this wiki; is there some reason records by Brady don't belong in a Brady article? Not in any rational mind.     From your contributions, your edits are very narrowly focused&mdash;branch out and stop owning things. What are you, in junior high with infinite free time to throw away casually someones work? Who are you to unilaterally remove good material simply because you don't want to bother with adapting it, if it fits somewhere else better?      Where is the prior dispute resolution attempt?     My 1st edit ADDED content with cites, the second fixed up ugly whitespace and made the formating of the page more robust, should anyone dig up additional pictures and such&mdash; Removing TOCnestright might have been warranted as a valid exercise of your editorial judgement, but not without having input from others involved on the page&mdash; which your cavilier and arrogant action totally removed, so those people can't see for themselves! And you call yourself an editor? Editors fix up problems and work for consensus, not remove pertinent data.     Since you didn't initiate ANY discussion, but acted in an unacceptably hostile, unprofessional, and juvenile manner, your citing your precious WP:BRD fails event there! The concise intro is still far too short by GA or FA standards and the MOS, so you're pissing up a stick there in the long run too. (Enjoy the wet feeling!)
 * My edit was limited to two sections, not "large parts" of the overall article. Any fool with rudimentary editing skills can access one section and put it back if it is found wanting in their view. In this case, the obvious solution would have been to change the heading more to your liking, widened the TOC with the maxwidth parameter, or other such incremental remedies as were appropriate&mdash;not cutting out fully cited material.
 * The article is undercited, so Be assured, you've just earned the refimprove tagging about to land in it, I expect full quotes and key words to verify your claims. Clearly, your judgment is an issue here as well. // Fra nkB 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, your revert also reverted a unclear tagging. I expect it and the citations to be put back ASAP. I think in looking at the diff you didn't -- My HUGE edit was about 7/8ths citations... which show up badly in the diff. A little phrase change in two places, and perhaps some whitespace... most of which can be clearly seen if you take the minor amount of effort to read and compare the two columns. All in all, this was one of the worst excuses of an edit I've seen in four years plus! // Fra nkB 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attacks, I do not respond to them. I will respond to comments about content. Future personal attacks will be deleted. Chaz Beckett 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in there that is even remotely a personal attack. Well, maybe the fool sentence could be misconstrued that way, but really only if I'd implied YOU couldn't do that. My impressions about you and your edits and edit manners are my opinions and clearly you are way overdue and very much need to hear how you come across. I AGF until you used the sophomoric arguments and resorted to that horrible BRD. You totally threw out an hour plus of my busy day and you expect someone to play your silly games? Sorry, read my user page, and put something into yours. As far as I'm concerned, point two above applies even more with THAT (PA) assessment. Get real! You claim you will address content, then where is the rejoiner about this raped edit? What is so bad about notes 22 to 25, or even the few sparse lines they support that you invoked a revert? Did you even look in accomplishments to  see what the appearance was? I find that hard to credit. Really hard. // Fra nkB  01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need me to point them out? OK...here's a few just from your comments here:
 * "No quality editor considers reverts as anything but a goad..."
 * "Instead you acted with undue (juvenile seeming) haste..."
 * "Nice and considerate, aren't you? Great demonstration of mature patience and deliberation too."
 * "What are you, in junior high with infinite free time to throw away casually someones work?"
 * "And you call yourself an editor?"
 * I'm unwiling to discuss things with someone who conducts themselves in this manner. Please do not post on my talk page again. Article discussion can take place on article talk pages. Chaz Beckett 01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alert
Hi there, ChazBeckett. I responded to your WP:WQA. I hope things cool down and you are able to get back to editing. Epthorn 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, ChazBeckett. Fabartus did not respond in a positive manner to the WP:WQA (you can see his response on his talk page or mine). I reported as much on the dispute page and suggest that even though he believes third opinions are inappropriate in this case, you may still pursue some. In the worst case you can continue to pursue the matter under WP:Dispute, but if you can ignore the other user that would probably be much less trouble. It's up to you (I am keeping the WQA page open- maybe someone else can try to be reasonable here). Epthorn 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)