User talk:JordanGero: Difference between revisions

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at European colonization of the Americas‎‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've created a talk page for the issue at hand. If the other editor (Rjensen) reverts my edits again, that will be in contravention to the 3RR rule. JordanGero (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:European colonization of the Americas‎‎, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, thank you for the suggestion. I'll preview my posts more often before saving them. JordanGero (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC

I returned the rfc to its original wording and title. You cannot change the question posed after it has been answered by other editors. If necessary you can either propose a change of wording or pose a new rfc with a different wording. My rfc is not about the wording about the specific paragraph but about the general appropriateness of the word seize for describing conquest and colonization in the Americas. In specific contexts other words may be preferale, what I wish to establish is the general appropriateness, i.e. that the word is not inherently loaded or contrary to the facts of the colonial process. If an rfc is needed in regards to the paragraph in question, then that will be a subsequent question. Personally I dont feel strongly that the word seize needs to be used in that case, in fact I would probably remove the sentence altogether if I were writing that section myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, your original wording in the Rfc is wildly biased to your position. This is not ok, and the rest of your defense is utterly irrelevant to the fact that it was wildly biased. I've reverted it, and if you change it again, I will revert it. If you want to start a separate Rfc for the talk page issue, be my guest. Most or all of the editors who have responded have done so with my updated version of the Rfc question, and yes I can change the question to better reflect the matter at hand. If you wish to dispute what I changed it to, then that is a separate argument altogether, but I believe it is fair as it is, especially given that most people are siding with your position anyway. JordanGero (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you edit my posts again, or again change the ongoing rfc without prior consensus, I will report you to administrators notice board. Your change makes the Rfc about an entirely different question than the one intended. And no, most editors answered my wording not yours (which can be seen in the fact that they answer "no", which is not a meaningful answer to your question). See the policy on how to respond to rfcs here and the talkpage guidelines here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maunus is correct. You can't go around changing text written by others. And you've made it clear you will edit war to keep your version, a very bad idea. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Can't go around changing text written by others." That is exactly what editing on Wikipedia does, for the most part: changes text written by others. In this context, it is the form of the Rfc comment, and given the utter bias with which the user ·maunus presented it originally, I've taken the liberty of lessening said bias. And ·maunus, you completely misunderstood what the dispute was about to begin with; you jumped in the middle of the discussion between me and Rjensen. You version is entirely inaccurate and slanted towards your position. And no, most users answered the question after I had changed it, not before. The only one who did answer it before it was changed was the first editor to answer it, and he/she answered it with a "no" and an explanation, which invalidates your implication that your version would not have engendered such a response. Literally not one thing you said, as with your original version of the Rfc, is correct. JordanGero (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Having been advised by User:Dougweller that editwarring to violate the talkpage guidelines and the RfC guidelines is a bad idea, you nonetheless continued to do so. I have no mentioned your behavior at administrators noticeboard.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the original wording of the RFC is wildly biased. Once an RFC has been posted, the answers are to the question as originally posted. Changing the wording of the RFC (even if making it more appropriate in the abstract) causes the answers to be responses to a different question than was asked. The fact that it also confuses the bots that maintain RFCs is secondary. What is primary is that changing the wording of an RFC causes the responses to the RFC to be meaningless, as responses to a changing question. You are permitted to post a separate RFC, or to explain in the discussion what question you think should have been asked. You have so far gotten off easy in that you have been warned and not blocked. Do not ever change the question of an RFC, even if the original RFC is completely stupid (which it isn't). Completely stupid RFCs can be closed as stupid. Changing RFCs cannot be reasonably closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Part of my point was that, unlike what has been claimed above, the majority of editors responded under my version of the Rfc question, so the survey results are largely already relative to that. JordanGero (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Red vs Blue editors

Good question. All I can give you is my somewhat jaundiced perspective. Here is a canned note that i sometimes send to editors that I think are new.

If you put something, anything, on your user page then your user name will change into a blue link rather than being the red one that it is now. This suggests to others, or at least to me, that you are not the dead end that red links suggest and that perhaps you are even a serious editor who intends to stay around. The "User Page" tab at the top left of this page will change color too. Consider it, Einar aka

This came about because sometimes when I was editing at somewhat controversial articles, (something I don't do all that much of) i.e.. ones about race, the men's movement and that sort of thing, a bunch of red linked editors would all show up at the same time, well versed in wikilawyering and often pushing what i perceived to be an agenda and I just get sort of an attitude about those sorts of editors. They are typically one or two issue editors and mostly go away after not too long. I am happy assuming good intentions until my gut says otherwise. I am not sure if other editors make these same distinctions as I am not in any sort of group that talks about this sort of stuff. So if you see this same red vs blue editors elsewhere you might ask the same question. Does this help? Carptrash (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Redlinked editors may often be editors who are recently registered and did not create their userpage yet. Some editors however never make their userpages and continue to be redlinked forever. Hence, in practice, not much information can be extrapolated from the color of an editors name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

All right, that's quite informative, and it confirms part of my own sentiments regarding red vs. blue editors (i.e., the latter are more likely to have been on Wikipedia longer, less likely to be a single-purpose editor, etc.), though as ·maunus points out, that's not necessarily the case. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GregJackP Boomer! 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)