User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2019/January

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Bears Ears National Monument shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.''You've made four reverts to the article in just a couple of hours, including a compromise attempt. Please self-revert so that you aren't in violation of 3RR. Thanks.'' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you've apparently no interest in self-reverting, I've replaced the material with attribution and inline sourcing, even though inline sourcing isn't required in article ledes per WP:LEDE. I trust this satisfies your objection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bears Ears NM
You don't get to just enforce your preferred version by repeatedly edit-warring. You've proposed a change, it's been reverted and now you need to join the conversation on the talk page and get a consensus to implement your change. Repeatedly reverting without discussion is disruptive and potentially tendentious editing. I have proposed a workable compromise, but you've not responded. Until there's consensus to change, the status quo must remain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Two Doors Down (TV series)
Please explain your revert at Two Doors Down and the apparent "mess". These edits bring it into compliance with MOS:TV standards. That is: I've explained my edits. Your turn. -- / Alex /21  07:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Using plainlist in the infobox
 * Organizing the infobox parameters to their display order
 * Correcting the manner in which the cast is listed
 * Using the correct headers by using the equals signs, not the semi-colon, which is explicitly disallowed
 * Correcting a number of the incorrect links in the series overview, and the use of the template; "includeonly" is unnecessary, inclusion of network parameter
 * Correct usage of episode table and episode list; that is:
 * Removing unnecessary headers (of course it's a series in a series table)
 * Removing empty cells and columns
 * Incorrect usages of TBA/TBC
 * Correct place and parameters to put the viewers (Viewers not Aux4)
 * The use of EpisodeNumber2
 * Conforming table widths
 * Incorrect display of viewer ratings; other methods exist
 * Order of sections per MOS:TV
 * Sorting the categories
 * I explained my edit in my edit summary. You had improved the layout but made a mess of the cast, but it looks like you've fixed it now. --hippo43 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Your edit summary was "rv. edits by Alex 21 were a mess". That explains nothing. So, basically, you're saying that you reverted a dozen MoS-conforming edits because of one list that you could have fixed yourself, or at least posted about on my talk page? Unfortunately disruptive... -- / Alex /21  01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Relax. As well as improving the format of the article, your two edits (not a dozen) made one part inaccurate and considerably less useful ("a mess", as I summarised) so I reverted them. That's all. Yes, I could have done more work to undo your mistake, but I didn't. --hippo43 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two contributions making a dozen separate edits. What parts were inaccurate and "less useful" to your opinion? Just the cast? -- / Alex /21  01:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you want from this. You made a mistake. I reverted. You fixed it. I suggest you move on. --hippo43 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In return, I suggest and hope that you decide to continue editing in a collaborative fashion, and not simply revert well-meaning editors because of small mistakes that everyone makes occasionally. Perhaps one day, we'll all be here to actually edit Wikipedia communally. -- / Alex /21  01:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really a small mistake. It mixed up characters and actors, a pretty central point which made the article confusing, and outweighed (IMO) the benefits of your formatting changes. There was an intermediate edit which made things worse, so I reverted to the version before yours. Anyway, thanks and have a good weekend. --hippo43 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)