Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Magic: The Gathering

Discussion below was cut and pasted from Requests for mediation. Uncle Ed 18:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic has continually reverted to his last edit, despite efforts on the talk page and his user page to explain why others think edits are necessary. Several areas in need of work, and noted as such throughout the talk page, are effectively being blocked. --Khaim 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not going to mediate with someone who chooses to mis-characterize my actions.  This newbie is assuming an aggressive editing stance on this article, and many related.  While obviously knowledgable, he forgets that these articles have histories to them and were quite stable before his arrival.  He's nit-picking over trivial wording difference on a non-controversial article. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is entirely beside the point. May I point you to this? I'm entitled to, and even encouraged, to edit as I see fit. I disagree that the page(s) in question are "stable". They need work. In addition, the very lengthy talk page addresses a number of issues that have not been resolved. I am attempting to do that.
 * You, on the other hand, are arrogant, possessive, and underhanded. Three times you have reverted to "your" last edit, and not once have you acknowledged that the edit was in fact a revert. You have ignored both my and other user's dialogue concerning possible changes. You have suggested that you are somehow more "worthy" than I to work on the page in question. Case in point: in the immediately preceding paragraph you refer to me as a newbie. Assuming that was true, it's also irrelevant. --Khaim 17:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you read anything on Be bold in updating pages besides the title? Under the "...but don't be reckless!" section, it reads in part - "New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories".  That is the situation you are in, making dozens of edits to that article in the span of one day.  Go back and read Be bold for some other suggestions, but take a break on that MTG article for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My main concern was the Gameplay section (before the subsections). You reverted my edit, and I haven't redone it, despite this and this both indicating that work is needed. If you would care to point out exactly what edits I've made since that have been disruptive, I'll be happy to reconsider. However, just because an article is old does not mean it should not be edited. In particular, the grammar and style is at times quite bad. For example, in this edit I added a link to the rules page, expanded by half a sentence the reasons for 20-24 lands in 60 cards, and attempted to rewrite the second paragraph so that it was both readable and adequately explained the topic being addressed. --Khaim 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)