User talk:TheGhostOfAdrianMineha/Archive 1

Welcome!
I welcome myself to Wikipedia, and recommend that no one else post one of those dreadful canned greetings here. —TheGhostOfAdrianMineha 05:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Partially ordered set
You reverted my edit to Partially ordered set without explanation. I understand that you are new here, so that's OK, but please note that I performed my edit after there was a week-long discussion on talk:Partially ordered set.

Here's the deal. I will revert back, as you revert was not justified and not explained. If you disagree, would you please join the discussion at talk:Partially ordered set rather than trying to see how can revert more. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was dicussed. You failed 2-to-1.  You just decided that your view should still win so long as there weren't lots of votes. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is more discussion on the article talk page. Please comment there. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've canvassed to build an artificial consensus. Too bad for everyone outside your cabal. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who joined the discussion on that article's talk page, I can confirm that no-one asked me, or otherwise tried to influence me, to take a particular position on that content dispute. Ergo, I was not canvassed. In fact, as someone whose editing on Wikipedia mainly focuses on writing about fiction, my involvement in the mathematics project is relatively light; I'm certainly not part of any cabal or clique.


 * Let me offer you some advice: you can't expect to "win" every disagreement on article content. If things don't go your way, it's better to accept it gracefully and not throw around baseless accusations.  After all, there's always the possibility that consensus might change.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even arguing, let alone trying to win an argument. I was trying to stop a minority from imposing a bad edit in spite of where things stood.  Let me give you a piece of advice: When you get a cheap victory, accept that quietly, instead of celebrating that cheap victory on some other editor's talk page. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's celebrating? The comment I left was intended for your benefit, not mine. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're celebrating, and you return to my talk page now to celebrate more, instead of having at least the decency to leave me alone. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 10:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that wasn't the intent. However, if it causes you distress, I'll leave you in peace.  Pax. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, another appearance here, to tell me that you'll stop appearing here. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
As a new editor, you may be interested in a page of resources for new math editors. In addition to explaining how to use the wiki software, it explains the way that we handle disagreements over article content. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by a process that we call consensus. While this is not the same as every other consensus decision making system, it is not at all a voting system. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NO one said that it was. It is also not the same thing as a minority changing things to suit itself until a consensus is reached. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 06:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you said "You failed 2-to-1. You just decided that your view should still win so long as there weren't lots of votes." it made me think you viewed the decision mechanism as relying on having enough votes to support your side. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. In general, you will run into such confusion less often if you don't use the word vote when referring to discussions about article content. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

.
 * While consensus is not a simple vote, standing in a minority is proof that one doesn't have the support of consensus, so my point was quite valid. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward P. Felt
I noticed that after “Edward P. Felt” survived a proper AfD, there was a later quickie used to deleted it with just three votes being declared consensus. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)