User talk:Garycompugeek/Archive 1 Feb08-Jun09

Rtwise
I'm done with him. I've nothing more to say as he was basically dismissing NPOV as an obsolete contrivance. Once that that happened, it became extremely hard to assume good faith. -MasonicDevice (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. He will not listen to reason and sees conspiracy where there is none.  You are wise to step back :)
 * And what's with the persistant charges of "cussing". The strongest language I've used was "hell" last week, or "beastly" on his talk page to describe the difficulty of reading a hacked up talk page?  Slander, I tell you. :-P. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test
Ward301 hasn't engaged in edit warring about the placement of the image yet... at least, no more than you have. I couldn't, in fairness, give him a warning without giving you and several others one as well. His latest comment was slightly uncivil, but not enough for me to become all that worried about at this point, especially given his obvious frustration. I might suggest a compromise on the placement of the image. Leave it where Ward et al want it, but change the caption to suit the section it is in. i.e.: Mention in the caption text that the images are traditionally kept secret because of fears it would spoil the results. They seem to have accepted that the image will be unhidden at this time, there really is no great use in fighting over something so trivial as image placement at this point. It serves to escalate the conflict needlessly. Resolute 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. His behavior was getting unacceptable and unconstructive which is why I backed off.  Communication is on-going on talk page and mediation will likely follow.

3RR
You've just violated the three-revert rule. You indicated in this edit that you were aware of the 3RR. Instead of reporting it, as a courtesy I'm giving you the opportunity to revert yourself (which doesn't count as a revert).

For future reference, you may find this helpful:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Jakew (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative I'm at three. Check my contribs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)


 * I count four in the last 24 hours:
 * 23:41, April 9, 2008
 * 01:04, April 10, 2008
 * 18:11, April 10, 2008
 * 22:37, April 10, 2008
 * Are you going to self-revert? Jakew (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems I missed the paste. Yes I've reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, I saw. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, someone reported this to the 3RR noticeboard. I told them there about your self-revert, Garycompugeek. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Just to let you know, Gary, I've just added Esen et al. ("Concealed penis: rare complication of circumcision") to the medical analysis of circumcision article. Here is a link to the edit I made. Jakew (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is preferable to edit warring
Gary, you've made two reverts to circumcision today, with very unconstructive edit summaries such as "I disagree Jake" and "please look up the word disagree". Unfortunately, you've made no effort to explain why you feel this way in the relevant discussion, and indeed your have not contributed to that discussion since 18:03, May 30, 2008. Please remember that edit warring is not helpful, and remember that &mdash; in general &mdash; it's best to explain your reverts on the talk page. Jakew (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree discussion is preferable to edit war. I disagree with your conclusions which I have made abundantly clear on the discussion page that I have been quite active on. I believe the sourced material provides good balance to the previous statement above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs)


 * Your disagreement is noted, obviously, but please don't be surprised if it is afforded relatively little weight in comparison to WP policy and reasoned argument. If you wish to influence consensus, you will need to address the arguments made. You may find this diagram helpful. Jakew (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The disagreement is about policy interpretation. I feel it is WP:UNDUE to leave out while you have the opposite view.  Your interpretation carries no more weight than mine. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you must mean something other than undue weight (which is about giving too much weight to a minority viewpoint), but perhaps that is poor phrasing. Jakew (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you seem to have abandoned the talk page discussion (you still haven't replied to my post of the 30th of May), and you haven't responded to any of the issues raised by Coppertwig on the 1st of June. In spite of this, you've managed to revert four times in about 26 hours. Could you please try to gain consensus for your views instead of edit warring? Jakew (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abandoned the talk page? I am all over it. Just because I prefer not to bang my head against the wall does not mean my opinions have changed. As far as consensus goes, you do not appear to have it.

Re: 3rd party request
I have responded to your inquiry at my talk page. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to gain consensus
Gary, it is becoming urgent that you familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. What you are currently doing, on several occasions, is to express your opinion, then when it becomes apparent that there is no consensus for the change you advocate, you simply edit war instead of continuing to discuss. I refer, for example, to your reply to this talk page post. Instead of addressing the issues I raised, you dismiss them as "word games", make a number of incivil remarks, and then start edit warring again. Please stop. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk:)

Jake you are alone in your opinion. Perhaps you should gain WP:consensus before reverting. You are a very intelligent young man but play dumb when things don't match you POV. You must learn to compromise with other editors. As far as being uncivil, that's simply not true. We may disagree but I have never been mean to you. You must admit you do act like the gatekeeper of this article. Maybe you should take a step back and let others contribute or not... either way I implore you to remember we all have opinions and must work together. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, Gary, I'm not sure why you think I'm alone in my opinion. Coppertwig, for example, has expressed agreement with retaining the WHO paragraph in the lead. In any case, in the context of article talk pages, consensus tends to mean a decision more-or-less acceptable to all, rather than a majority vote.
 * Secondly, I repeat my plea for you to familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. The basic idea, as Coppertwig has explained is that the stable state of an article is assumed to have rough consensus (as it should: you, I, and others worked hard to find a compromise on that paragraph previously), and one needs a consensus to change it (one can be bold, of course, but if faced with an equally bold revert, the proper thing is to think "hmm, I guess there isn't consensus. Better discuss instead"). See Talk:Circumcision as an example of how to go about achieving that consensus - yes, it involved a lot of discussion, but we got there in the end. And as I recall, not a single revert occurred during that entire process.
 * It should have been perfectly obvious from the talk page discussion that there was no consensus to delete that paragraph, and indeed there was less support for removing just that paragraph than for, say, removing both paragraphs or Coppertwig's suggestion (the latter might have had some chance of succeeding). Instead of demonstrating good faith by implementing a proposed compromise, you tried to force through a change that you wanted to make, knowing that there was no consensus for it. When combined with the fact that this came immediately after you effectively abandoned the discussion, that's not good.
 * I may be wrong, but I sense that you're frustrated by long discussions. To be completely open with you, there are times when I am, too. But often they're necessary, particularly in the case of difficult articles like circumcision, and one has to be patient. Jakew (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gary, for your reply. It is also appreciated. Jakew (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Female Genital Cutting
Perhaps rather than an edit war, or stepping on other editors toes, you might discuss in the talk section why you think the entire article should be marked POV. I recognize that you have that opinion, which of course, you are entitled to have -- but should we mark every article on Wikipedia POV that Garycompugeek has a difference of perspective with? Of course, Wikipedia prefers a consensus of people to agree on things. In that article, hotly discussed over a long period of time, endless references have been given to the historical usage of the term "Female Genital Cutting", including usage by researchers, politicians, countries, and NGO's. It isn't a term that some individual Wikipedia editor made up in order to push people's buttons.

For my part, I see a number of things in the article that don't agree with my perspective. But, the article is pretty well balanced, and gives several views, not just one view, and gives good citations for those views. That is the definition of an article that is NOT POV. If you have time, take a look at the article Adolescent Sexuality it is well written, and full of citations, and extremely POV and unbalanced. Atom (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article's title is what is in question which is currently being debated on the article's talk page. The purpose of the tag is to bring attention to that discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your message
Thank you for your message, Gary.

Unfortunately, you seem to misunderstand the policies that you cite. As explained in the above section, 'the stable state of an article is assumed to have rough consensus [...], and one needs a consensus to change it (one can be bold, of course, but if faced with an equally bold revert, the proper thing is to think "hmm, I guess there isn't consensus. Better discuss instead").' This is further explained in WP:CONSENSUS; the diagram to the right is taken from that page.

You claim that "You must still abide by current consensus regardless of your position", which supposes that there is, in fact a current consensus. Yet if we examine the history of the article, we can see that (if I count correctly) six reverts have taken place over that image, two of which you've made yourself. I don't know how you can trace the flowchart to the right and find a "new consensus" that way. Furthermore, if we examine the relevant section of the talk page, it is equally clear that there is, in fact, no consensus regarding whether the image should be included.

Secondly, you claim "continuation on this course [is] WP:VANDALISM". Yet if you read that policy, you will find that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [...] Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (emph in original). In fact, not only have I explained why inclusion of the photograph violates WP:NPOV in several edit summaries, but I have given detailed explanations of this on the talk page, so there is no need even to assume good faith, as my rationale is fully explained. Thus, even though you may personally disagree with my position, and even if you consider it misguided, it is not vandalism.

Also, you imply that I think that I own the article. I do not, and have never claimed that I do. Per WP:POLICY, however, I feel a sense of responsibility as an individual editor to "enforce most of the policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other." Jakew (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.
 * Please don't listen to Jakew's nonsense here. He knows full well that he's the only one who checks all circumcision-related articles daily, and uses his interpretation of the above guide as an excuse to argue to keep any inappropriate, POV pushing material that happens to stay in an article more than a few days because no one notices it.  He certainly didn't respect the "rough consensus" on the circumcision articles when he arrived.  Neither should you.  Blackworm (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a little more care
Gary, please could you take a little more care? My most recent edit consisted of two fixes, and your latest revert reintroduced both problems.

The first problem was a minor problem in Gary P88's proposed compromise version of the paragraph (which I think is somewhat worse than the original, but I'm prepared to go along with it). I changed this:


 * however they also stated that "[a] survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

To this:


 * however they also stated that "[a] survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." They continued, "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

If you read the first version carefully, you'll see that there is a problem: The sentence beginning "Masters and..." is a quote, but although the quotation mark at the end is present, the one at the beginning is missing.

The second problem that I fixed is citing a single and non-representative primary source, which introduces undue weight as I explained on the talk page.

You haven't said anything about the second problem on the talk page, so I don't know your view about it. However, I find it very difficult to believe that you intended to reintroduce the first. Please would you be more careful in future? Jakew (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My revert was by design Jake. I will respond furthur on the Talk:Circumcision.

Regarding edits to Rogue
The reason for the reversion is that the claim of starting "it all" is both overly vague and unsourced. Rogue was not the first dungeon crawling CRPG, and a sweeping generalization is not a useful contribution if it cannot be stated in clear terms with reliable sources in support. The trailing nutshell lineage of NetHack is also questionable; Hack was heavily inspired by Rogue, but was not a direct revision of the latter. Again, the claim reverted was unsourced, and to large extent, is beside the point with respect to Rogue, the focus of the article in question, not NetHack. D. Brodale (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on articles talk page.

What do we do about this IDIOT, who probibly knows absolutly nothing about the article? 67.174.157.126 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly revert
Hey Gary. I removed the quote from Dr. Dean that you added to the circumcision article. I don't think it is notable enough to balance the section effectively. I'm going to dig up some peer-reviewed research articles that found little or no protective effect of male circumcision on HIV transmission. Give me a day or two to find the refs. Is this okay with you? Kindest regards, AlphaEta  19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind note and help with my HIV concern. Your addition is welcome but does not address most of the points I feel important to relate.  Mainly that circumcision not be recommended to combat HIV because there are other much more effective measures that are less harmful.  Dr. Dean is simply a Dr. editor for Netdotor.  Basicly the UKs version of Web MD.  Both are peered reviewed and strive to maintain an air of neutrality.  It's true Dr. Dean is not famous but fame is not a requirement of ours.  Perhaps more background leading to quote... Dr. Dean of Netdoctor writes... or Netdoctor say this about... ?
 * Sorry Gary, but I reverted this addition with the following edit summary: Rv - We can't add a quote from every expert on the subject. It's outside the scope of this article. Also, "About NetDoctor" makes no mention of peer-review. I agree that the section needed balance, and I tried to do this by adding contrary research findings.  The reliability of NetDoctor is questionable.  It may not be a good idea to add quotes from individual experts in this context.  It sets a precedent that will lead to repeated edit wars as people try to add quotes which support their position, and it will be difficult to argue that some expert opinions are more notable than others.  Thanks,  AlphaEta  15:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Female Genital Cutting
Hello.

I have removed the POV tag you repeatedly replaced on Female Genital Cutting. The fact that you disagree with the current article title does not mean that there is an actual POV dispute over it; in fact, the current title was arrived at as a result of the dispute being resolved in 2006. Unless you can demonstrate reasonable consensus to change the title, then the current title is the consensus; and repeated reinsertion will be considered disruption and edit warring (please remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, it's an absolute limit&mdash; edit warring does not require three reverts before steps are taken to prevent further escalation). &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We apparently disagree on what the purpose of the tag is for. I was going to reply in furthur detail but Blackworm has laid out the issue quite well here.

Circumcision
Gary -- please!

This is quite frustrating. I put a post on the talk section explaining precisely what the issue was. The leasty you could do is read the discussion before reverting.

AlphaEta pulled the quote from the article so that we could discuss the wording. We began discussing it. Blackworm and yourself both commented. Then even though we had not hammered it out, Blackworm put an old version of the quote back in. I detail this with the diffs. Find where AlphaEta pulkled it out and check for yourself. I placed back into the article the precise version that had preceded Alphaeta's removal. Not some new version. It was the previously posted version. Blackworm (by mistake) too an old version that favored wording that he prefers. It may be wording that you prefer too. However -- I did not place wording that I preferred, or just invented, I placed the wording that was there prior to Alphaeta pulling it out. I would appreciate you putting it back please. It is embarrasing to have to run to ANI everytime two people team up and are confused about something. You can look at the article history yourself. Here is where AlphaEta pulled it from the article Is not the wording I just put in precisely the same? Atom (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to have to read everything you write, Atom. I did not (by mistake) [take?] an old version that favored wording that [I prefer].  The version chosen was exactly the correct one.  I do prefer it, yes, and it is favoured by the current consensus (I don't see a new one, do you?).  Blackworm (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the wording is very busy -- which is shy AlphaEta pulled the para for us to discuss. Why did Blackworm put (the wrong version) back in before we had finished that discussion? Was it so vital that the paragraph be there until we had happerd out a solution on the talk page? I'm fine with the version before AlphaEta being there, and then working on wording, or removing the whole thing, and then work on wording -- but for us to pull it all out, and then Blackworm put in the wrong version, one that he favors against the agreement to pull it out until we had worked it out doesn't seem right. Atom (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been reading the discussions. Trust me others would have quickly reverted if I didn't.  ANI will not help you gain consensus.  Hammer it out on talk before changing the lead as the current version has consensus for the moment. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the best approach is to get consensus on a version. The existing version is not the current consensus, that was the point of my long-winded statement. It was the reason I tried to change it.  It is a version recently placed by Blackworm, without previous discussion with others.  It is not the version that preceded AlphaEta pulling the para, nor the version before that even.  Anyway, my point was exactly that a fellow should be able to discuss and find consensus on the talk page without having to resort to ANI to be treated fairly.  The paragraph is not worth arguing about, I just think that Blackworm should have not interferred with the ongoing discussion by placing back in the article before we had worked it out -- and if he had to place a version back in the article he could have chosen the version that did have previous consensus, rather than his preferred wording.  Enough said.  We both have better things to do.  Thanks for listening.  Atom (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Atom, you're only confirming over and over that your problem is with me, and not particularly with my edits. Yes, I'm to the point, cold, and verbose.  It comes off as unfriendly.  I'm sorry.  But look at the amount of time I've spent trying to explain Wikipedia policy to you.  Nothing in the policy insists on friendliness.  It insists on WP:CIVILITY, which is something else entirely.  But please, let's get past this.  We have shown that we have the potential to work together.  Let's do it.  Blackworm (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the version we have had for months. It got a little crazy over the weekend and got shelved in favor of the old version.  I can live with it even though I dislike the WHO/HIV para in the lead.  Involved editors have made convincing arguments that it is notable so I will compromise.  We need the keep the lead a simple summary. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on discussion
Garycompugeek, you said, "Don't be obtuse Alpha...". Please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No insult or disrespect was meant by this Coppertwig. To paraphrase, Do not be close minded Alpha or.. Open your thoughts Alpha.  I appreciate your thoughtful discourse.  You have been very diplomatic and I commend you on your neutrality.
 * Thank you. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For this edit. I appreciate it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure Coppertwig. Trying to keep everyone focused. ☺ Garycompugeek (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach
Hello, what kind of sources would you expect for this paragraph? Looking at the talk page is IMHO more than enough to see! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.74.20 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We now have my real ID! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamhanna (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not source worthy. Please read this link. It explains the standards the encyclopedia has.

Circ Discussion
Is a sham for religious reasons. Please help me maintain the disputed content tag.172.191.40.81 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I abhor circumcision but both sides of controversy must be told. Anyone is entitled to add tags as long as proper protocol is followed.  I will do what I can to make sure wp policy and neutrality is maintained.
 * PS Welcome back Tip. Keep your cool and don't play the fool.  Your a good editor when you don't lose control of yourself.

Re this edit where you said "Catagorically reverting Tip because of past transactions is very unadmin like behavior Avi." I think Avi was reverting because of the reasons explained in the past discussions, not just because of the discussions themselves. I think it's perfectly valid to refer to past discussions. Avi is participating as an editor, not using admin tools; and I think reverting to the version that had been there until a short time ago is a perfectly normal and acceptable response to edits which don't conform to the request in the controversial template. Please think about how the other person might feel when you consider using phrases like "unadmin like". ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.

Thanks for this edit. I might have said something very similar if you hadn't gotten there first. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New RFC for JtP
Still trying to get clarity on a point - care to contribute here? Mattnad (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Rogerzelazny.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Rogerzelazny.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars
Gary, I don't know exactly how to put this, but I'm really disappointed in the events that occurred at circumcision and circumcision and law recently. Let me explain the sequence of events:


 * As you know, Jayjg, RavShimon, and myself had reverted the insertion of some material into circumcision. It should have been clear, therefore, that the addition did not have consensus.
 * I posted a detailed explanation of the problems with the material, demonstrating that it violated WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
 * You then reverted to re-insert the material. Your edit summary read "CNN is a valid reliable source and this clearly about male circumcision", which was perplexing because the material you re-inserted did not cite CNN.  Nor did you made any effort to rectify the NPOV problem, the fact that a self-published source was cited (V was violated), or the fact that a claim was attributed to a source that made no such claim (ie NOR was violated).
 * You then posted a very brief note claiming that "Source is valid and on topic", which again made me wonder whether you'd actually read the diff which you reverted, or indeed the preceding discussion, as there were in fact two sources, one of which was unquestionably self-published, and the other of which was unquestionably about female genital cutting and failed to support the claim attributed to it. Nowhere did you address these issues.
 * Then you inserted the same material material into the circumcision and law article, in spite of knowing that the material was contentious and that unaddressed policy concerns had been raised.
 * In spite of my stated concerns about whether the material belonged in WP, I attempted to compromise with you at this article (circumcision and law). I therefore edited that article so as to correct the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V problems, replacing the dubious sources with CNN.
 * Then you restored the policy-violating material again.

This is, as I say, disappointing. The ideal on Wikipedia is bold-revert-discuss, whereby person A makes a bold edit, person B reverts, and then persons A and B discuss until a consensus or compromise is reached. What seems to be happening instead is that person A makes a bold edit, person B reverts and explains why, person C then reverts back to the original and fails to address most if not all of the points raised. Then person C makes the same edit to another article, person B attempts to introduce a compromise, and person C effectively reverts back. That's not good. Perhaps you might have some thoughts about how that can be improved? Jakew (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Hopefully) helpful tip
Hi Gary. I just noticed that you've been signing people's unsigned posts on a few occasions. I just thought you might find it helpful to know that you can get the Wiki to do most of the work if you just type Username. Best wishes. Jakew (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Jake, that is helpful :) Garycompugeek (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Ward3001 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very clever Ward but not true . You may revert my warnings and add pointless templates to my user page but it will not change the facts.  Continue heedless and you will be blocked. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach
Will be happy to comment on this when it goes to ARB. Just let me know. Cheers. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doubtful that will happen, hopefully the matter has been cleared up by xeno's synthesis of data but I will notify you if we have to go there, thanks. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Hi, Gary. Due to the nature of my participation recently elsewhere on the project, I'm not in a position at the moment to criticize anyone for long talk page posts. Therefore I apologize for having previously criticized the length of your posts. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Coppertwig, I do appreciate when any editor reaches out to another, I must admit I do not recall you ever criticizing the length of my post. (I am known for brevity.) If you did I accept your apology. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)