User talk:Ssbohio/Canterberry

Docklands Light Railway
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Canterberry 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A friendly word. Wikipedia works by consensus. This means that articles require a majority of the editors to agree on the content. Your recent attempts to add some contentious text should have shown you that there is a consensus that this text is unsuitable. If you continue to insert this text, the same result will occur ... it will be removed. Last word ... you have tried three times, and failed.  Wikipedia operates a "three strikes" rule (WP:3RR), so if you add it in one more time, you will find yourself receiving further warnings and a possible blocking of your account.  Canterberry 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your words constitute an unfriendly and false accusation. First, you accuse me of POV editing.  Plainly, the facts don't support your insinuation that I don't know our core policies.  Until you made your edit, only one editor had objected to the use of the word "embarassing."  That is hardly a lack of consensus.


 * You go on to imply a WP:3RR violation when you made your warning more than 24hrs since my first edit, thus outside the strict limits of the rule. Either you don't understand the rule or you're deliberately being disingenuous in your "warning."  Your tendentious and false accusations here decrease my faith that you're trying to achieve consensus rather than intimidate me into allowing the article to be less accurate than it otherwise could be.  Any further communication between us is contingent upon a change in your approach from attacking my work to consensus building. --Ssbohio 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You were well on your way to a WP:3RR violation, and I don't care about whether it is within the 24 hour limit, three reverts is still three reverts, and constitutes edit warring which ever way you slice it. As for the WP:NPOV the use of a emotive word such as "embarrassing" is always likely to end up with an argument. Any editor with any experience of WP would know this and avoid it. Reading some of your "waffle" on your user page, it seems quite clear that you have an opinion on everything, and like to express it. Frankly, I have better things to do than write essays on everything and anything that enters my head. Canterberry 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You were well on your way to a WP:3RR violation, and I don't care about whether it is within the 24 hour limit, three reverts is still three reverts, and constitutes edit warring
 * The 3-revert rule is written in plain language, and its plain language overrules your opinion about what it says. If you'd like to allege further policy violations, take them to an admin.  See how far your assumption of bad faith gets you there.
 * As for the WP:NPOV the use of a emotive word such as "embarrassing" is always likely to end up with an argument. Any editor with any experience of WP would know this and avoid it.
 * When I see the words "always" or "never" in a statement, I suspect hyperbole. An embarrassing incident is one that makes a person or organization look bad, but doesn't do actual damage.  Trapping the reigning Monarch of your nation in a railway carriage is embarrassing in the same way that water is wet.  It's not a point of view, it's just common sense.
 * As to my experience, I've been doing this for a few years and, whild I do make mistakes, I have a pretty solid grasp of our core principles. You've been doing this since 25 April, with fewer than 1000 edits, and fewer than 700 mainspace edits.  Here are some of your highlights:
 * 25 April you transferred part of the article on the Lea Valley Line to a seperate article on the Chingford Branch Line. 26 April another editor undind your changes and you in turn reverted him twice You then threatened the editor with WP:3RR on his talk page (much as you've done here) and denegrated him for being an IP editor.  By your standard above, you violated the 3RR.
 * 26 April you described various of your own edits as a MasterClass in how to produce maps, a work of art, & I amaze myself sometimes at how good I am. Such hubris is unbecoming.
 * 30 April - Described other editors' work as appalling & unacceptable
 * 3 May - You decided to stop contibuting, but came back on [8 May], making up a position for yourself.
 * 12 May you go after User:82.45.163.4 again, reverting his edit, denegrating him for not being a registered user, describing his good-faith editing as vandalism, and hereby issuing him a warning, just as you previously did with User:24.161.102.39. Very friendly way to approach others.
 * 13 May, you falsely claim that a criticism of your actions as an editor is a personal attack and remove it, as you did with a warning of sockpuppetry. You go on to defend your assumption of bad faith on the part of IP editors.
 * 17 May you reverted an edit, calling that editor's contribution pointless, again describing good-faith editing as vandalism and describing the editor's contributions as UNACCEPTABLE.
 * 17 May you accuse an editor of spamming and canvassing for asking you to consider uploading images to Commons instead.
 * 17 May you reverted Mpk's good-faith edit, and issued him a warning.
 * 23 May you again reverted when someone objected to your forking content into a new page on the Shepperton Branch Line‎.
 * 30 May - You reverted as vandalism (using the undo tool) a good-faith edit by Ferstel, describing his contribution as an unnecessary edit, which is not substantiated. Ferstel later complained to you, to no avail.
 * On 31 May - You erased your talk page, removing evidence of others' concerns regarding your civility and removing a warning about an improper edit.
 * I think my review of your first month as a Wikipedian is sufficient to demonstrate the tendentious nature of some of your contributions here. Aside from those, you've made a wealth of worthwhile contributions.  I'm still open to discussion and compromise, as long as you alter your approach from one of attack to one of cooperation.  It's all up to you. --Ssbohio 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)