User talk:Jeni/Archives/2017/January

BRD
Do you know what WP:BRD stands for? To me, it means that when you make a bold edit which is reverted, you don't bring it back but discuss on the talk. I find it helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only helpful when the editor in question engages in discussion. The user in question doesn't seem to like communication. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree, I think it's a good concept in any situation. How do you know an editor will communicate if you don't even try but revert back? Even if one editor doesn't communicate, there are others watching an article who may say something, but rather in a civil talk page discussion than in an exchange of edit summaries which is not transparent, especially for newcomers. You can start to be communicative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on the articles talk page, which Gareth has declined to take part in, and has reverted anything added to his own talk page. So yes, we do know if said editor is going to communicate. I'm finding that you're making presumptions here without looking at the situation in detail? Jeni  ( talk ) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Define ongoing, all just of today, two participants, - not what I'd call consensus. Won't say more in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I'm not even sure what you're on about. An editor decided to make valid changes, Gareth decided to revert and warn the editor for vandalism (the changes certainly weren't vandalism) for reasons I can only presume are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rather than enter into meaningful discussion as offered by the original editor, Gareth ignored all that and decided to edit war. Quite how you're coming to the conclusion that anyone other than Gareth is the problem I have no idea! Jeni  ( talk ) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)