Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 12 June 2009

This is the Dario D. Talk Page.

Need Assistance Keeping IPod Touch & IPhone Criticism Sections Up

1. I don't know where else to turn for this, so I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone who really understands Misplaced Pages policy can help. Someone deleted an entire, well-cited, carefully written criticism section I posted for the IPod Touch (no reason given), then after I restored it, they deleted it again, and pointed me to a FAQ posted at the top of the discussion page, which said that having a criticism section was "generally discouraged". (I COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT I WAS READING - and it was proven shortly after that the statement was false) Here is a link to the absolutely pristine, irremovable crit section I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=IPod_Touch&oldid=295630451#Criticisms ...and the debate is actually on the Talk:IPhone page (notice 'IPhone', while the issue is mostly about the IPod Touch crit section, but ultimately covering the issue about whether or not BOTH pages get to have one) The discussion there is long, but you should get the entire gist in just a minute, either by skimming, or just reading the last couple posts. Look for "Call to Criticisms" and the 2 sections under it. Thanks. -- 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving this message as a courtesy

Your recent editing history at iPhone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Just to let you know, I would be justified in reporting you to the Administrators' notice board, but I'd rather not have to do that. Please don't edit war while we're trying to do work things out on the talk page. -- Atama 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The burden of proof sits with the minority, and with those who desire change. Contrary to what you have said numerous times, that would be you. I have defended my opinions. You can address the points I raise, or you can concede them. Until such time that you convince the larger majority (Atama counted seven other users floating through the discussion), the article stays how I--we--prefer. That's the consensus.--HereToHelp 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy (link) and there is no consensus on THIS edit. "...and with those who desire change." I'M the one who posted that battery crit; YOU'RE the one who wants to change it. Your other points are worthy of another 10 pages of argument, so I'm not even going to touch them, except state flatly that I disagree with my entire being. "Just to let you know, I would be justified in reporting you to the Administrators' notice board, but I'd rather not have to do that." No, please go do it, because I am 100% convinced that they will side with me, and take action against you. Go do it. Go. Go. Go. I understand my actions, and would be happy to have to defend them. I don't understand yours, and know that they'll be judged harshly.-- 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D., to respond to your comments on my talk page, while I don't need to justify why I give a barnstar to another editor, the reason I gave one to HereToHelp is because he has been helping improve the iPhone article for a long time. I also granted it before this whole criticism discussion began, but that's not saying I no longer agree with what I said when I granted it. HereToHelp is getting close to the 3RR as well, but his reversions were done with a request to discuss matters on the talk page, not with a declaration that they're going to stay forever as you have done. And let me say I don't at all appreciate you calling me the most biased person you've ever seen on Misplaced Pages when I've made every effort to be fair, I've thanked you multiple times for the good information you provided on the article and I haven't reported what I've seen as combative edit-warring. I still hope we can come to an understanding over the article. -- Atama 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(removes BS protectors from ears) Please save time then, and go report me. I'm serious. I've been trying to get other editors in on this since the beginning, but only one has ever even joined (and his position is neutral). Almost everyone else (Groink and the rest) has been hawking this article since at LEAST early 2008 (haven't looked back further), RUTHLESSLY taking the "let's remove the criticism section" stance all that time, in stark contrast with almost every other article on Misplaced Pages. That's part of the reason I still suspect (without pointing fingers - just stating internal thoughts) that the IPhone/Ipod Touch articles are an Apple investor hangout. I would bet money on that.-- 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I joined, and when you attempted to look for aid in the Misplaced Pages IRC room, an actual administrator offered an opinion as well. I don't know how many more people you need for something to actually click. V_IX (Talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, claiming editors are Apple investors doesn't help your case one damn bit. Your claim that "every other article has criticism sections" is also flat out untrue. V_IX (Talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You joined as retaliation for making you look like an absolute moron on IRC (and that's why you're still here), and your full "opinion" was concocted after such a brief look at the page, that you couldn't have even gotten through 1/3 of the FIRST discussion section. Also, the administrator falsely stated that policy is against having Crit sections, when it makes no such distinction - I quoted 2 places in that article where it states that Crit sections can by all means be written (and one was Jimbo Wales stating it).-- 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a disclosure... I got involved with the iPhone article because I had received one as a birthday present. I really enjoyed it overall though I had constant problems with the Safari browser crashing and before the App Store was available there wasn't much to do on it other than browse the web and make phone calls. But at one point it stopped working, the phone could no longer make noise except through the headphone jack which means it would no longer ring and I couldn't hear someone in a regular phone conversation with some kind of external earpiece. I took it to a Genius Bar, which involved waiting hours for someone to help me, and he said I needed to purchase a whole new phone. I thought that was ridiculous with a hardware defect and canceled my iPhone plan, and I'm now using a Windows Mobile phone. If I have a bias at all it would be an anti-iPhone bias but I do my best to remain neutral on any article I work on. If you still think that I'm part of some Apple conspiracy I don't know what to say to you. -- Atama 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)