User talk:Cobhama

April 2013
Your recent editing history at M25 motorway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 20:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I don't agree with the addition of incomprehensible jargon and convoluted prose? How does that work then? Presumably your recent history shows you to be involved too. Are you going to warn yourself? Cobhama (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 20:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have only reverted your editing twice: you have made the same revert three times. You started this wrangle here –&#32;


 * Please read the page WP:3RR and take this as a 3RR warning. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Tell me (both of you now) why you think it ok to add stuff without discussion and that such an addition cannot be removed without discussion. Surely the onus is on the adder to justify the inclusion of new material, and such material can be removed pending any discussion about its merits. Cobhama (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And now I see, despite this discussion, that the offending material has been added again - without discussion. That is surely not only edit warring, but tendentious edit warring. Cobhama (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you intend editing road and motorway articles here, I would suggest you familiarise yourself first with expressions such as grade separation which you do not appear to have heard before. –&#32;
 * Why? What we write is for others, from all countries and from all walks of life, to read and understand, not just for those who have written it. Cobhama (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting into quite a complex question of the use of appropriate (or otherwise) vocabularies here. I am pretty sure that, if any of us can be troubled to look for it, there is policy on this somewhere already; but for now I think I would just say that I really feel that we don't have to avoid all technical language for the benefit of people "from all countries and from all walks of life" - in fact, arguably that is one of the functions of the Simple English Wikipedia. It seems unrealistic to pick on an expression like grade separated junction when the definition is only a click away, and when it is a - it seems to me, anyway! - quite well-known and concise was of saying "a junction where roads cross at different levels, by bridge or tunnel or whatever". I can see other examples in the article, and others, where we don't spell out every technical issue word by word. And after all if someone doesn't know what grade separation is and they click to find out, then they will know for ever, so we have done them a favour! :) Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite agree that technical jargon can be appropriate; but in the right place. To describe the way that junction 5 on the M25 differs from other junctions on it is not the right place. All junctions on it are grade-separated, so that clearly isn't a significant detail here. The paragraph had evolved to be quite clear, but then was replaced with the monstrosity we now see - with no discussion or clear explanation as to why. If standard English can be used and jargon avoided then why not? Cobhama (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the paragraph - does it make better sense now?
 * BTW, please fill in a bit about yourself on your User Page - I don't know anything about you, least of all whether you are familiar with this junction - if you look at my homepage you will see that I live in Hampshire, have worked in the Netherlands and that my father was Dutch, so it is probable that I have driven through that junction en-route to the Netherlands. Martinvl (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, based on your example of what one might deduce from the contents of your homepage, that logic isn't one of your specialist subjects. A Latin phrase springs to mind: non sequitur. Cobhama (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)