User talk:Pragmatool

Intel Atom 64-bit support
I have moved the talk related to the Intel Atom page from my talk page to the associated talk page of the article. It is likely to get more people reading it there to assist you in finding a suitable RS. HumphreyW (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Intel Atom. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
 * Note: I attempted to 'reach a consensus' - however HumphreyW's position was that there was no RS (even though other sections of the same page have RS'es of similar quality). I would hope that this identical message is therefore being sent to HumphreyW as well, and perhaps a review of his position.  Could you let me know if this is the case please.
 * I do not believe that it is a reasonable position for Wikipedia "staff" to automatically assume that Wikipedia "editors" are always in the right. In my case I believe there is clear evidence to support my statements and edits to the page.  I would appreciate knowing if the automatic 'editor is in the right' stance is applied to edit wars.  If it is, you can be assured that I will be escalating within Wikipedia to have this approach changed immediately.Noasshats (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ''P.S. If you feel you have already attempted the avenue of discussion in talk page without results, you may resort to other methods of dispute resolution. Please remember: Negotiation skills always help.'' Codename Lisa (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the implied threat, however I would also ask that this same blocking threat be delivered and applied to HumphreyW's actions. Depending on whose edits are finally chosen I am happy to be blocked from editing, or for HumphreyW to be blocked from editing. Please note the following:
 * I had created sufficient RS details within the talk page with my edits to remain accepted, though the topic is not one that Intel nor any laptop manufacturer will admit to in any proper "RS'able" fashion. It is therefore difficult to obtain a clear statement from Intel or the manufacturer - however I have still supported the edit with evidence in multiple forms (screenshots, emails from Intel and the laptop manufacturer, and a reference site with exactly the same issue).
 * After a week or two - HumphreyW was the person who (again) reverted my edits with little or no explanation other than "no RS", causing valuable information to be lost
 * I have many times asked HumphreyW to state for the record that he has no affiliations with Intel or related companies. He has refused.  I find this concerning and believe that it is in everyone's interest if he states any such affiliation.
 * I believe some review of HumphreyW's activities in other pages and articles should be reviewed as part of his behaviour with regard to his participation in "edit wars". Note well:
 * I have added valuable information (not all Intel Atom systems support 64 bit)
 * HumphreyW's 'contribution' has been primarily to simply remove information on the basis of 'no RS' or 'poor RS'. Much of Wikipedia is littered with "citation needed" and weak RS's - yet these pages are retained.
 * An objective evaluation of the two edits on the basis of "value for the reader" and "evidence" should be done. I believe on this basis that my edits should be accepted, and thus HumphreyW's "reverting to their preferred version" (your words above, not mine) should be blocked.  I believe - not just to this page, but to the entirety of Wikipedia until his behaviour across other article pages can be analysed.
 * Noasshats (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have already sent a stronger message to HumphreyW. He is a Wikipedia veteran and is expected to maintain a higher standard of behavior. (But please, never say it in his face.) However, please note that cooperation has two sides. Since I have added a third opinion, I think the problem will soon be resolved. In the meantime, I urge you to pay attention to your username problem immediately. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Noasshats", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be seen as an attempt to provoke an emotional reaction in other users. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine for someone to rename the account. It was created in frustration at HumphreyW's reversions of my non-logged in edit, and refers specifically to his casual damage to useful information.Noasshats (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's probably a good idea. Just follow the instructions at Changing username and think of a new name for your account that is allowed by the username policy. About the citation needed tags, etc. - it should be a lot clearer what is going on if you read the verifiability policy, which does a good job of explaining things. Basically, people often like to use a citation needed tag if they think the information is correct, but there is no citation. However, that isn't a licence for everyone to add unsourced information to articles, and any editor may challenge or remove statements that are uncited or cited to an unreliable source. The best way to fix the problem is just to add a suitable citation. If you have a disagreement about whether a source is unreliable or not, then you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, or if you have another kind of dispute you should ask for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - waiting on it ...Noasshats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)