User talk:Waskoma

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot is a program that tries to help people find interesting, useful things to do in Wikipedia. It predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

You received these suggestions because we're trying a little test to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newer Wikipedia editors -- but normally it only makes suggestions for people who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We won't post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. SuggestBot was created by ForteTuba--please let him know if you like it, or if you don't, or you feel that it was a good or bad idea to make these suggestions to you as a newer Wikipedia user.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, by following links from them to other articles and by matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians to find things you might be interested in. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, cleanup articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advise
Waskoma- I don't mean to be malicious about bringing this up, so I apologize if it comes across as such. I just thought some advise would help smooth things over. Though you disagree with the discussion at Talk:Atari 8-bit family, I feel it's safe to say most would call Collins' article an analysis. The fact you've been so adamant about this trivial detail has been a driving point of the ongoing discussion. It's only a single word, and there is no need to be argumentative or so aggressive about it. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misinterpreting it, but that's how it came across to me and I'm sure to others by the look of the talk page.

I hope you can let this wording go. I think you've already accomplished something positive by bringing up the NPOV issue, which will lead to a "Reception" section being created. Let Marty and some other editors try to create a suitable reception section. Let's see what they can do with it and if it portrays the Atari system appropriately. But with this discussion going in circles with no end in sight, that may not be possible. We've already helped steer this article in a positive direction, wouldn't efforts now be of better use on other matters? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I have explained openly my motifs and toughts on the talk page. What's happening is I am trying to neutralize a sentence. Why do you think we shouldnt do this? Our goal is to make the article better. If we can do that by changing one word, and this is in harmony with WP rules and guidelines as I have shown, then we should. Calling a text an analysis which refers to itself as an article is doing WP:OR, and POV, and is presenting information which is not directly supported by the source.--Waskoma (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My goals at the moment have nothing to do with the article. I'm only trying to help two opposing parties reach a resolution. Something I think is worth mentioning is that Marty and I don't think the word "analysis" lacks neutrality. This more a difference of opinion rather than a fight for a neutral point of view. I can't help but feel this whole matter could have been condensed if that fact was taken into account early on by both sides.
 * If you feel the matter is important enough to dedicate the time to, you are welcome to continue, just as Marty and Badger welcome to as well. The issue can continue going in circles indefinitely, or you can try to work together. That's something I suggest you may want to evaluate as you're on here. Is it worth the time and effort to fight every time there's a difference of opinion? Or would some concessions here and there help more positive things get done? Such situations happens to everyone (Miyamoto picture example and Marble Madness example). And if you plan on editing regularly on Wikipedia, it is best to have good working relationships with your fellow editors.
 * I've done about all I can in this situation. If you think the matter deserves more attention and a wider audience, I suggest posting something at WT:VG to get more view points on the matter. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC))