User talk:Majorly/Archives/58

Rollback
Why did you use the rollback function for this reversion ? The previous edit does not appear vandalistic in nature. —David Levy 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it did not.  Majorly  talk  20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question. —David Levy 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was unconstructive.  Majorly  talk  20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You should have used the undo function (or performed a manual reversion) and noted that rationale in your edit summary. Alternatively, there are tools that enable the inclusion of custom edit summaries when performing a rollback.
 * The default rollback function (with no custom edit summary) is to be used strictly to revert edits that are clearly inappropriate (such as vandalism, non-sandbox tests and edits by banned users), not edits with which one simply disagrees. —David Levy 20:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was clearly inappropriate. I'm not sure what else there is to it.  Majorly  talk  20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An edit along the lines of "FYFUEDWQIHDE@Q#%E@QJDL," " " or "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!" is clearly inappropriate.
 * What made this edit (which was performed to a section encouraging people to edit the page, and in no way altered its meaning) clearly inappropriate?
 * I agree that it did not improve the page, but that's a content dispute. —David Levy 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was inappropriate - any reasonable person can see that. It's messing with the original wording on the user page, and makes it look like they wrote things they didn't. If you cannot see this is a blatant and clear case of an inappropriate edit, then I have nothing else to say to you. I'm honestly not really interested in discussing this single appropriate and proper revert that you've taken objection to any further, because there's nothing else to say. There are some things you can now do: take the case to an appropriate page and see what others think, because I completely disagree with you; or you can simply revert my revert and be done with. But honestly, this fuss over nothing is more inappropriate than the edit itself.  Majorly  talk  21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Messing with the original wording on the user page"? The user page whose owner actively encourages other people to edit it?  In the very section that was edited?
 * I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight (and hoped for an exchange along the lines of this one). I don't regard this as a big deal; I just think that this reversion called for a custom summary.  And either way, you should have posted an explanatory template on the user's talk page (as noted by Chillum).  —David Levy 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rollback is for when an edit summary is not needed. This edit looks like a test edit. I don't think an edit summary was needed in this case as anyone else can tell it was just a test edit, and Jspence80 was given a template explaining the reversion. I don't see any failure to communicate here, which is the real danger of using rollback instead of undo. Chillum  21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't regard the addition of coherent, contextually logical, non-derogatory text as a "test edit," but I concede that this is a judgement call. That talk page message, however, was added by User:Tide rolls upon the reversion of a much later edit.  Majorly rolled back the earlier edit without providing the user with any type of explanation.  —David Levy 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this use of rollback was a problem. Perhaps someone else will, but not me. Chillum  22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You just stated that "failure to communicate" "is the real danger of using rollback instead of undo." Do you not agree that Majorly erred by not communicating with the user?
 * Again, I'm not saying that this is a big deal. It really isn't, and I didn't intend for my advice to be taken as harsh criticism.  —David Levy 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The revert was explained on the user's talk page. If someone else gets to a user's talk page before you with a warning, then there is no need to post again yourself. Chillum  23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, that message was not posted in reference to Majorly's reversion; it referred to a much later reversion (50 minutes later, to be precise). —David Levy 23:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Still looks like a good explanation as to why the user was reverted. I suppose Majorly could have repeated the warning, or escalated it in the interest of going through the process of warnings. But it would not have aided in communication as the user had already had this issue explained. I think there is a range of discretion in using rollback and that this is well within that range. It may not be in your personal range, but I think it is in the range of what the community considers appropriate use. This is not a big deal to me either. Chillum  00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to have misunderstood the chronology. Majorly reverted, 50 minutes passed, and then User:Tide rolls reverted another edit (and immediately posted that explanation).  —David Levy 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks..
..for the words of encouragement. I am fairly new to rollback and am still learning, so I want to hear from any editors that have opinions concerning my edits. David Levy happened to express an opinion about one of my weaknesses (vandalsim vs edits that are so "out there" as to be seem ridiculous). To me it's a gray area that I have trouble negoltiating at times. I am aware of it and I do try to leave customized summaries when called for. I don't know that I will ever be able to believe those edits shouldn't be rolled back, but it's just a burden I'll have to bear...policy is policy. Again, chime in whenever you see the need. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of rollback is a particularly contentious issue. Some admins use rollback liberally, from vandalism, to removing messages from their talk page they don't like. While the edit was made in good faith, there is no question whatsoever about its level of constructiveness - i.e. none at all. Although it doesn't expressly state it, my userpage is open to anyone to improve, fix, or add to, as long as it doesn't change my wording or general design. I'm sure Jimbo feels the same way - he wrote the "you can edit" part in a particular way. Inserting random smilies and "GO ON EDIT!" type phrases is pretty much vandalism in my book, and you can try and justify it by saying "Jimbo allows it" till the cows come home, but the point of this is the use of rollback, in both our cases, was totally appropriate.  Majorly  talk  21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You described the edits as "messing with the original wording on the user page, and [making] it look like they wrote things they didn't." You do realize that the wording in question was not writen by Jimbo alone, and is the product of the collaborative editing (such as this) that he encourages, right?  —David Levy 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit that I rolled back is incomparable to that one. For goodness sake, David, please move on. I thought you weren't interested in hearing from me anyway? If you know you don't get on with me, why do you keep coming back?  Majorly   talk  22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Quality aside, I don't see how the edit that you reverted substantially differs from this one, this one, this one or this one, all of which expanded the message without altering its intended meaning.
 * There is no dispute that Jspence80's edit weakened the prose's quality, but how does it differ in spirit? And how can you refer to this as "messing with the original wording"?
 * 2. I'd forgotten that you were the same person as "Al Tally." Regardless, I have no intention of avoiding on-wiki interaction with you.  That's not to say that I'd go out of my way to seek it out, but if I happen to notice an edit that I believe warrants discussion, I won't treat you differently than I would any other user.
 * 3. I hope that our prior interaction didn't color your perception of my feedback. I truly don't regard this issue as a big deal or have any desire to foster hostility in either direction.  —David Levy 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I await your response. In particular, I'm interested to learn why you referred to the expansion of prose written mostly via the collaboration of users other than Jimbo as "messing with the original wording."
 * If you were unaware that Jimbo didn't author the text himself, it's understandable that you would mistakenly regard such an edit as patently inappropriate. If this is the case, I would sincerely appreciate a simple acknowledgment of your error (and an apology for treating my constructive criticism as unreasonable and hostile).
 * If you don't believe that you committed an error, I'd sincerely appreciate an explanation of how this jibes with the above. Thank you.  —David Levy 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "I truly don't regard this issue as a big deal" And neither do I. Please drop the stick and move on.  Majorly  talk  22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Majorly on this one. Time to move on. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of Majorly's claim that I treated him " like a piece of dirt " in the above discussion? Underlying issue aside, I don't take that statement lightly.  I'm only asking Majorly whether he stands by that characterization or now believes (as I do) that a misunderstanding of the facts led him to regard my constructive criticism as hostile and unreasonable.  (He stated above that "any reasonable person" could see that "messing with the original wording" was inappropriate.)  —David Levy 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A worrying development
I sem to be finding myself on the same side as you more and more frequently these days. I wonder, which of us has changed? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of us have changed. Simply put we disagree on some things, and agree on others. I think it is good!  Majorly  talk  20:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme
Hey,

Thanks for all the work you've put into the Cheadle Hulme article! Nice to see my baby thriving. Sometimes I go back and look at that first article and laugh at what it has become. Chris Martin (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! When I made my first edit to it, nearly three years ago, it looked like this. It has indeed come a long way. It was hard work, from gathering all the references to writing the stuff about the geography. But well worth it. I'm waiting for the GA review to be done, then I'll get working on it further to make it FA-worthy. If you can think of anything else to add or any suggestions, please help. Thanks again.  Majorly  talk  18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support of case
I have created this, which you might be interested in. I would like two or three editors who support this case to chime in (either there or on my talk page), so we create the strongest possible argument for a topic ban from RfA. This message is being both emailed and posted on your talk page. Tan  &#124;  39  18:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's live. Tan  &#124;  39  19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"protest votes" and other sundries
Like chocolate and Lay's potato chips, no one can eat just one. No matter how ill advised, someone will pick up that first one, gotta go ahead and type in the snappy reply when common sense says, "leave be." I guess like so many things that cycle through, we are destined to have someone make a series of astoundingly unconventional posts that get people riled up, and then a series of attempts to have the individual wiki-eviscerated, ending in an eventual ban. IT is fated. Dloh cierekim  21:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope you didn't get the impression....
I hope it didn't seem I was trying to edit war with you. I saw your edit summary "ces", which led me to believe you might not have meant to remove that content. Because the text is clearly controversial, I'll wait and see what kind of consensus develops. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't at all, don't worry. I don't know why I've been dragged into this stupid discussion anyway. ces is short for copyedits, but the removal was of course intentional. I don't believe ignoring solves the problem, only covers it up. He's still going to make the votes, whether we ignore or not, and I don't think that's right. He needs to be removed completely before I am satisfied. I'd have given perhaps a little leeway if he ever edited the encyclopedia, but he simply isn't interested in it, only in trolling everyone at RFA. This is why it's so ridiculous.  Majorly  talk  01:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I received a spurious oppose vote when I was made admin, back in '05. Only one person bothered to reply to it, and that person was kind of obviously out of line. The oppose vote spoke for itself, in terms of silliness, and nobody was really bothered by it. I fail to see what's wrong with such a situation. Receiving one spurious oppose actually put quite a seal of authenticity to my confirmation. In particular, if that was the only grounds to oppose, then I must be alright. Does that make sense? I just don't see his continued presence as any kind of threat. I see it as an opportunity for new admins to learn the value of not fighting sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never respond to his stupid votes, but someone always will, therefore giving him the attention he wants. It's silly to say "don't respond to him" yet at the same time, allow him to comment where and how he likes. People new to RFA will naturally be curious, possibly offended by his blunt remark, and respond to it. This is why he needs to be forcibly banned. Not doing so will guarantee he will get attention in some way. People are claiming it's giving him attention on RFA talk... well, that's a necessary evil. If the discussion had gone the way it should have done, he would have been banned and we'd have had no more need to talk about him. Now the situation will continue: he'll continue to make stupid votes, people will continue to reply to them, and there will undoubtedly be another discussion about him. It goes in a circle. If only people could see the trouble being caused by not banning him.  Majorly  talk  02:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)



Majorly, Sounds like you really need one. Dloh cierekim  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Majorly, I can see that you're taking the position you are for all the right reasons. I tend to think that there is a way to show the community another way, but if I end up being wrong about that, you have my support. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)