User talk:Galraedia

Edit war Bob McDonnell
Galraedia, you currently seem to be engaged in an edit war on the above mentioned article. A user is restricted from reverting the same article more then 3x a day, unless vandalism is added (Which is not the case). Reverting other users over and over will not solve the problem, and i urge you to discuss the article on the talk page, or search dispute resolution in case that proves futile.

Furthermore, an edit conflict is different from blatant vandalism. Adding level 4 vandalism equivalent template at once screams bad faith and incivility, so i would kindly ask not doing so - especially not in this situation. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts to Bob McDonnell Article
Related message, Related edit 1, related edit 2

I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, I will steer clear of making edits on the article for the next 24 hours:) Boromir123 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias.  Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :)  Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus?   And if I crossed any rule then so have they.  However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.


 * As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus.  And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen?  Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it.  Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News.  Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV.  So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV.  I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified.  I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)


 * I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Schrandit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''A content dispute is not blatant vandalism. Do not use this template for such things.'' —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. Geoff Who, me?  01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)