User talk:Rkughen

Edits to Juan Pierre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pierre) have been reverted for what I believe to be entirely arbitrary reasons. The document that Yankees 10 refers to clearly states that it is not a formal standard. See "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

Yankees10 is very active on Wikipedia, and I appreciate the work he puts into it, but this is an arbitrary edit that appears to be more about his personal preference and not about any specific rule. Leading a league in hits is not a small achievement and should be noted as a career highlight/award. It's not as if I am suggesting that we list the man's shoe size or favorite color. The info I have added is correct and relevant, and it should be left intact. I would appreciate my edit being restored. Thank you.
 * Open a discussion at Talk:Juan Pierre and see if others agree with you. Don't keep edit warring on the page as that's against policy and doesnt accomplish anything. Spanneraol (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. And I agree, warring on the page doesn't solve anything. However, I believe my edit should be reverted because I made a good faith and accurate edit that the other user is continually reverting for entirely arbitrary reasons. I think the onus should be on that user, not me, to make a case. My edits don't violate or challenge any established rule. The document he refers to clearly states that it's not an established policy or guideline. Thank you.
 * The rule is that if you want to make a change and it is reverted you need to discuss before continually making the change. Spanneraol (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so that means any user can any reversions he/she likes, and that user doesn't have to justify the change, even though there's no specified rule that's being broken? The onus for justifying the reversion should fall upon the person making the reversion. The addition I made to the page is not controversial, inaccurate, libelous, or even slightly off-topic. Honestly, I don't see why we're even talking about this. Is there no system for settling disputes that doesn't rely on users just happening to see the comment on my Talk page and either agreeing or disagreeing with me? Rkughen (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)