User talk:Mindbunny

Talkback

Hello, Mindbunny. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Mindbunny. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia/Saudi women who have achieved professional prominence

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Indeed please stop edit warring. I looked through your history and initially I had blocked your account until I saw you weren't properly warned (initially it appeared to me you were warned, so I apologize). However, edits like this [1] which directly run opposite to a good-faith attempt to work with you show very very poorly on your behalf. Indeed, please slow down a bit and use the talk page. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1. I am reverting to the consensus version. The material DeCausa is adding had never been in the article prior to a week ago. 2) Two of my last three edits were to undo false positives by recent-change patrollers. Both patrollers admitted they are not actual editors of the article; rather they assumed it was vandalism because I hadn't copy/pasted my edit comment from the first time to the next, 3) Even counting those edits, I didn't make more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period. Mindbunny (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you haven't actually unblocked me at all. Mindbunny (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mindbunny, I suspect you have been caught up in an autoblock which didn't clear when your account was unblocked. Please follow the instructions on this page to get the block cleared. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found and removed your autoblock. You should be free to edit now. Please do not resume reverting or you will likely find yourself blocked again. --B (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I continue reverting, if the material continues to be added? The added material is not part of the long-standing consensus version, and multiple reasons have been given for why it doesn't improve the article. Do I misunderstand how the consensus process works? The burden is on those who want to alter the stable version. That's not me. Mindbunny (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep reverting because the policy says not to. Although I agree with you that the relationship between this section and the article subject seems at best tangential, that position seems to be in the minority and you should discuss it rather than simply revert to your preferred version. The policy is not concerned as much with proving "who is right" as it is to preventing disruption to the editing process. --B (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No proper reasons have been given for its deletion. All that's happened is I answered off-topic questions posed by Mindbunny. The 'long-standing' consensus point is a strange one, and implies that no new material can be added. I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding of 'consensus' and Wikipedia processes in general. Mindbunny could, for instance, review WP:BRD, but there are others that Mindbunny needs to review as well. I agree there are issues with the text (although I think there is a kernel worth having) - I was merely transfering it from another article, it's not mine. Mindbunny's reaction, however, is way over the top, and refusal to discuss in keeping with complaints from other editors. I think Mindbunny fundamentally misunderstands the whole editing process. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Asserting that my reasons are not "proper" reasons is not constructive . My opinion is that your reasons for adding the material are not "proper" reasons. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the principles of consensus-building, number one of which is: don't revert the revert. The "long-standing consensus point" is not a strange one: it is a fundamental principle. It does not "imply that no new material can be added." It implies that you need to build consensus. At a most basic level, it implies that you don't revert the revert of your "bold edit". Yet, that is exactly what you've done. In fact, you are now continuing to add even more material to the contested material, knowing it is diisputed and lacks consensus. Mindbunny (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't lack consensus!! No one has commented on it!! The fact is you haven't explained your position. End of.DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To be completely clear, as it has been suggested that I was not, "being right" or "believing you are right" is not a justification for edit warring. There is no deadline for completion of Wikipedia and, since we have infinite time, you can discuss your proposed changes on the talk page while the article displays the m:wrong version. Repeatedly reverting is not an acceptable behavior, even if you believe your preferred version to be the correct one. --B (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The guideline on edit-warring apply applies primarily to those who initiate changes without getting consensus, and the guidelines on consensus say so. There is nothing in policy that applies more to me than DeCausa, and quite a bit of policy that constrains DeCausa more. The fact is, the changes s/he is making don't have consensus and the objections to those changes have been stated. Furthermore, DeCausa is continuing to make even more changes to the article in the same vein, knowing the editing is objected to and that the conditions of an edit-war are building. Bottom-line: Changing an article requires consensus and DeCause is attempting to change the article. Mindbunny (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood wiipedia. Have you read WP:BRD? Also, you don't need to get a consensus for every change. At the momenbt there's no way of knowing whether there is aconsensus one way or other because of your behavior. The normal process is that you respond in Talk and we debate it, and if there is a consensus against I will very happily remove it myself. You seem to assume this process is confrontational. Normally it's not. DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I read it, which is how I know that you're violating it. The most basic principle is: don't revert the revert. You made a bold change. It was reverted. The next step is the D: discuss. Instead, you are continuing to shove the material into the article. Mindbunny (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the "confrontational" part, what I see is that you immediately (and repeatedly) have lectured me about how Wikipedia works, about how I don't understand anything, and that I only disagree with you because I'm more ignorant of Wikipedia than you. I see you reporting me for edit warring, and using a list of edits that spans 3 days and not mentioning that 2 of my edits were related to false positives by recent change patrollers who thought they were correcting vandalism and that I hadn't violated the rule even counting those edits. In other words, a truly frivolous 3RR report. I see you employing "gotcha" tactics to try to win an edit war. When I look at your activity on other articles, I see a similar pattern. Mindbunny (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What an earth do you mean? I've never reported anyone for edit-warring before. I've never reported anyone for anything before. So what's the pattern? The administrators saw all your posts - and they saw your posts claiming they were 'false positives'. They obviously didn't agree. The fact is you have violated two rules (as originally determined by the admin before he realised I hadn't formally warned you - check out the notice board). It wasn't just edit-warring (which isn't limited to the 24hr 3RR rule) but also disruptive behavior. On BRD: "Yeah I read it, which is how I know that you're violating it. The most basic principle is: don't revert the revert. You made a bold change. It was reverted. The next step is the D: discuss." Exactly, you didn't discuss. You just posted a series of off-topic questions. Everyone else who's looked at this doesn't see it the way you do. I can see from your talk history and from the article talk that you have a history of problems. So I suspect I'm talking to the wall, but I'm still willing to have a mature discussion about my edit. You can continue thinking you are the only person who is right or you can try to see what everyone else has said to you. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Bped1985 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)