User talk:Nernst/Flaming Baha'is

3RR warning
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. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do if you are trying to start an edit war. If you change a page to an earlier version more than 3 times in a 24 hour period you will be blocked. You have not tried to build consensus, because if you did you would have brought the discussion to the talk page and asked for comments from multiple editors before changing the page. Instead you keep changing to your version of the sentence without consensus, since the consensus in fact has been to use the word 'perceived' since it has been there for multiple years and reinforced by the fact that two editors have reverted your changes in the past day. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A revert is changing a page to an earlier version of the page, and a warning is Wikipedia etiquette before asking for administrator action. Please read 3RR.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A revert is not necessarily using the "undo action", but "A revert is any action, ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.". And yes, I cannot revert the page anymore today either.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But I can. You've now got three, experienced, Baha'i editors who're prepared to change that wording back. A good rule of thumb here is that when you get reverted use the talk page after the first one. Waiting for the second or third will generally be taken as argumentative. Relax. Nobody's being libelous or obstinate. We're all on the same side here. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's what I did ! I clarified the edit and then used the talk page and now I've got 3 experienced Baha'i editors ganging up on me. I am well aware of the excellent quality of many of the Baha'i articles including the 'featured' baha'i faith article. As a reader, I am grateful for this and for the hard and diligent work that you all have put in (particular Jeff3000). But I don't need to get in to a clique mentality and am sure the 3 of you can manage without me. I'll stick to medical articles where the 'facts' as less controversial ! Nernst (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. At Jeff3000's suggestion, I have reviewed 3RR and also looked at the 'block' policy. From what I can see it is not designed as a punitive measure or one that would result in a permanent 'blemish'. However, the finer points of wikipedia etiquette are lost on me. I can only speak in terms of social etiquette in which context in would be unusual for a new member of a group to receive qualified accusations (you appear to be engaged in an edit war), threats (But I can ... [edit the page]) and apparent bullying (you have 3 experienced Baha'i editors who are willing to change the word back). It is particularly disappointing that the only place on wikipedia I have encountered this is from Baha'i editors. I'm sure your group work effectively together as a team but I would suggest that it is worth cultivating outside viewpoints, especially given the comments of the only non-Baha'i editor. Print encylopaedias I have examined use the word 'declare' without qualification. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nernst, I wonder. There's clearly a disconnect here and I've never been accused of bullying for trying to get someone to calm down. Really, having more than one editor honestly disagree with you does not constitute their "ganging up." Nor does pointing that out constitute "bullying".


 * Sincerly: is English your native tongue? If so, are you used to this medium? You seem to be have managed to take every single comment personally and in the worst possible light. This is understandable if either of the above are true as there are subtleties that take getting used to. Written English lacks all inflection, so much of the intent is lost. This medium — online talk — is the worst for the written word because it is so often treated flippantly. So much so, that even when sincere text is presented, it's often read as flippant thereby overlaying inflection on the writer that they never intended. I think that that is very likely the case here. Assume good faith is an important principle and incorporating it will serve you well. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had not expected a response but thank you for getting back to me. To answer your question I am a native english speaker and as I have said throughout am not particularly experienced with this medium. The responses to my edits certainly felt like bullying although I can't comment on the motive. At the very least, it represented a clique response to an outsider. It may be useful to briefly recap my view of the succession of posts.

I made an edit that was 'reverted'. From the comments I assumed that this was due to a lack of clarity on my part and attempted to correct this with each subsequent edit, going as far to rewrite the paragraph as a comprimise and assuming good faith throughout. At this point, instead of pointing out that I have already made 3 edits and should sleep on it, I get a warning on my homepage from user#1 accusing me of 'edit warring' and telling me not to make any more edits or i may be blocked. This warning came within a minute of making and reverting my last edit. Up until then, my homepage had contained only a few pleasant comments and a plate of cookies. At this point I was livid and made an angry response. On reflection it was a mistake to suggest User #1's comments were possibly libelous.

User #2 who has previously worked extensively with user #1 agreed with his comments, noted that 'blocking' was a serious saction and suggested that the warning was a 'courtesy' and that I was lucky to avoid getting referred to the administrators. User #2 also noted that he and other Baha'i editors could and would revert further changes to the page while I could not; I am not sure why this point was emphasised. User #3, a 'non-Baha'i' was then good enough to acknowledge that there might be some merit in my argument but by this stage I had decided it was clearly not worth persuing.

I note that in his edits to me Jeff3000 does not use 'thank you' and only uses 'please' when he is quoting the rule book. Most of his statements regarding my conduct are, ironically, definitive "clearly you didn't know about the rules...You have not tried to build consensus...you keep changing to your version of the sentence without consensus". I find this very surprising since my only prior knowledge of him is that he is a very experienced wikipedian and had an award for patience.

I have made forthright and controversial edits before and have only received exceptional courtesy in response. This may have been a honeymoon period but it is very disappointing that the only response I have received from Baha'i editors is either silence or hostility. The notable exception is 'Cunado' who has been inclusive, considerate and helpful.

As I have said, the sensible option is for me is to stop contributing in this area since it is not a productive use of my time. This is disappointing because I had thought I could make useful edits.

As per your suggestion I have reviewed WP:AGF and noted it's content, thank you. I would submit that you may find 'WP: please do not bite the newcomers' and 'WP:civil' of interest. The Baha'i articles on wikipedia are an important and useful resource and all contributing editors to date deserve praise for their excellent work in compiling and maintaining them. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may your opinions of me or other editors, and that is your right to hold them, but I sincerely don't agree with them. My actions were on point with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, especially with the warning, and with consensus building.  My feeling is that you are hurt that your viewpoint has not been accepted by others.  Another note, is that Wikipedia policy also states that one should "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (see WP:NPA). Your last couple edits on users talk pages have all been on the contributers and not the content. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly know more about wikipedia policy and guidelines than me. In my defense, I was simply responding to a question by your colleague and I think it's a bit of a stretch to label my comments as 'personal attacks'. I'm sure your also aware that "WP:please don't bite the newcomer" states that Ignorantia juris may excuse and that "you yourself violate wikipedia's policy and guidelines when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." Regarding your assessment of my motivations. I think that it is unlikely that "I was hurt that my viewpoint has not been accepted by others" since a non-Baha'i editor did accept my viewpoint, yet despite this I withdrew from the discussion again demonstrating that the point was not particularly important to me.

On reflection, I think I was more surprised by the manner of the response rather than hurt or annoyed by it. I certainly wish you well in your future edits. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're artificially creating groups that are for and against your viewpoint. It's a logical fallacy to use the fact that one non-Baha'i editor agreed with your edit makes it true that all non-Baha'i editors would agree with you and vice-versa.  The point is three other editors (regardless of if they are Baha'is or not) did not agree with you.  Secondly, I was not stating that you were making a personal attack, but that you should comment on contributions not editors, which is in many Wikipedia guidelines, but most easily referenced in the NPA guideline.  Finally, I was not biting the newcomer, I was just giving you a warning about a policy that you did not know about, which the WP:3RR page clearly states must be done to newcomers.  The warning is a template message (see the 3RR template, this link is not the same as the WP:3RR page) that I didn't write myself, but it a standard Wikipedia message to all editors.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better for me to say 'an editor' agreed with my viewpoint. I would comment further but feel we're going round in circles. I agree that this is not a productive use of either of our time. Again, thank you for your guidance. Good luck and all the best - Ali Nernst (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ali, you're still reading emotional content and intent into others' comments that isn't justified and ignoring your own contributions to this. I don't understand how saying "please" is impolite and incivil. You need to realize that three reverts in a day is generally considered belligerent around here — so warning you to stop was actually the appropriate course of action. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried my best to be empathic and acknowledge and learn from my own mistakes. If I have misinterpreted previous posts, then I apologise and would be grateful if you would clarify their meaning for me. I find 'please' to be uncivil when it's used only while quoting a rule book and I find 'warnings' less helpful when they are accompanied by threats (i.e. edits may be changed -vs- i will change your edits). It was not the warning I objected to but the manner in which it was delivered. I note that WP:3RR does not currently state that new users must be warned but instead infers that discussion should remain on the article's talk page.

A single line on the talk page suggesting I 'sleep on it' would have avoided all of this and an even handed approach following my angry response would have diffused what followed.

I withdrew from the discussion when I saw it was causing disunity and have undertaken not to edit Baha'i articles in future. I think it is safe to assume I will not be breaching the 3RR rule again. I would not have posted my other messages if I did not think they would be of some value to you. I suspect that this value is diminishing and would suggest drawing a line under all of this. I bear none of you ill will and wish each of you every success. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo
Collapsing the photo might work. An idea was kicked around previously to just make a link to the photo, but that died. Collapsing keeps it on the page and might be acceptable. You will still get similar arguments about censorship and pandering though. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

revert
Reverting just means moving content back to a previous version. You can do that by editing the page, clicking "undo" in the history page, or also in the history page you can click on an old version of the page, hit "edit", then "save". That last one puts the older version of the page back into the current version. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd worked that one out but thanks for getting back to me. To be honest, this all goes well above my pay grade as a junior editor, so I think I'll step back, let alone get involved in the photo. I've managed to get firefox to block images and that stops me being in a bad mood for the rest of the day when I stumble on the image. Thanks again.Nernst (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)