Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 9 September 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Eff Won, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mjroots, and thanks for the tips. There's a lot to read there, but I've already found some useful help there! Eff Won (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Eff Won! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Please join other people who edit Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean's quote

Please note that the quote from Grosjean in the season report on the 2012 Formula One season page was placed that way for a reason. There are several other quotes in the race report section that deal with major episodes of the 2012 season - such as criticisms of the Pirelli tyres, accusations that Red Bull's car was illegal in Monaco and now Grosjean's ban. They were placed in quote boxes because they are notable enough to be mentioned, but their inclusion in the text of the race report (as you have proposed or this one) breaks up the flow of the sections. It takes the focus away from the events of the race, and pushes the word count over the ~350 per section that the section has been written to. That is why Grosjean's quote - and the others - have been put in quote boxes: so that they can get coverage without interrupting the readability of the section they apply to, and so that they can be included without using up words in each subsection. Your reasons for changing them are purely cosmetic.

Please do not revert these again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Eff Won (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

This is unacceptable. You are bound by assume good faith like everyone else here, and an attitude which includes accusing other users of "irrational hatred" is going to ensure that your stay on Misplaced Pages will be a short one. I suggest you redact or remove your comments on Prisonermonkeys' talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith of a user who ruthlessly erased my first edit here on Misplaced Pages, an edit that I was proud of for the value I thought it added to the article, using the edit summary "we don't do that", when it transpires that we actually DO do that, or did, in both the 2010 and 2011 articles until that very same editor systematically and without discussion or proper explanation removed identical content from them on June 11, 2012. That same editor then got all indignant in the talk page discussions I raised about it and has been misrepresenting the state of the article and the content I tried to add and offering genarlly weak excuses for the removal of my modest contribution; presumaby in an attempt to drum up support for his stand against me. Eff Won (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I am not joking. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to the relevant place. Casting aspersions against him on a talk page will simply get you blocked. Nobody cares if you find it "difficult" to assume good faith - do it anyway. If you think he has a stand against you, consider how it looks from the other angle. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is "the relevant place" then? Do you support his treatment and my first edit, even if you were not aware of his behaviour at the 2010 and 2011 articles? "Blocked"? For exposing inexcusable behaviour? Who would support or enact such a "block"? Eff Won (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI - be sure to include links to what you've said about him. My own view of it is that you had no consensus, nor even anyone agreeing with you about the 2012 page, yet you saw fit to roll out your preferred version to the 2010 and 2011 pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Where was the "consensus" to eradicate all trace of the useful links from the 2011 and 2010 pages, more than 6 months for one and over 18 months for the other, after the end of the respective seasons? Eff Won (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not having this out here with you. The consensus existed for the format of season articles after a discussion involving a number of editors. As I say, try ANI for your problem with Prisonermonkeys. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on either of the talk pages about removing the calendar table links in June 2012. In fact there is no discussion after June 2011 on the 2010 talk page and nothing after January 2012 on the 2011 talk page. And that is where it should be if it is to be seen by interested editors. Eff Won (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have a consensus on display anywhere that someone might want to read it. FYI, it's here. A proposal was made to change it - no consensus = no change. Filed that ANI report yet? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing there in that January 2012 discussion, about condensing the 2012 calendar table, sanctioning the mass destruction of links that took place 6 months later on the 2010 and 2011 pages. Eff Won (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody condensed the table. The consensus was to leave the 2012 table as it is, and that rolls out across the other season articles. There was explicitly no support for linking race reports in the calendar. You have no consensus to put the links back, so I suggest taking them out again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The January 2012 discussion was about condensing the calendar table in the 2012 article, nothing else, and was rejected. Five months later in June 2012, an editor removed the specific GP links from the 2010 and 2011 articles, with no discussion and no explanation. Yesterday I restored those links because they have value and are in compliance with the guidelines on links. I can't see any reasoned discussion or consensus anywhere that they should be absent. Eff Won (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, this nonsense ends now

Not every edit requires consensus. That does not mean that any editor can do what they want, but if someone makes a bold edit and there are no objections, then there is no problem. If there is a problem, then a discussion is required and consensus is needed to go forward. If no consensus is reached, then the article goes back to where it was before the changes were made.

As of a few days ago, before you appeared, there was no problem with the way the 2012 article stood, or any other past seasons that were changed to be similar. A discussion likely did take place regarding the links in the calendar, but I do not have it off hand, all I know is that it happened a while ago. And even if a discussion did not take place, no objection was made to Prisonermonkey's edits as far as I can tell.

I specifically recall telling you that since you appear to be new, and in response to your actions on the 2012 article, you should not be making bold edits, AKA calm down. Now here we are, a day later, and you're making equally bold changes to the article, and once again engaged in an edit war with multiple editors. What part of calm down did you fail to comprehend? I also specifically told you that you should discuss changes before making them, considering you had already tripped over such a foolish move once in your brief time here. And now, because people are having to deal with your bold moves made against better judgement, you start accusing people on conspiring or having alternative motives.

So, here is where you stand right now:

• Edit warring stops now, you have already crossed the line of what is a blockable offense. It is as simple as this, if you continue to revert other people's edits or make sweeping changes to articles because you feel like it, you will be reported and blocked by an administrator, it's not even a questionable matter anymore. This warring is more destructive to the articles than any sort of benefit you think your edits make.
• Accusing any other editor of anything stops now. No insults, no degradation, no accusations of underhandedness, nothing to imply that there are personal motives behind other people's edits, because at the moment you have not a single shred of evidence to support other than that people disagree with you. This too is a blockable offense. Discuss the particulars of this matter, not the editors or their reasonings. This includes making accusations on editors' own talk pages.
• If you wish to discuss policies on Misplaced Pages, I suggest giving other editors the benefit of links to the specific guidelines you feel back your claims.
• If you have any further suggestions or wish to discuss any matters regarding the layout of Formula One pages, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One is where you should be putting your ideas forth and arguing your case, not in edit summaries. The majority of editors to F1 pages watch that page, and can be involved in discussions, and this is where most consensus is made. Decisions made there can also more easily involve a variety of articles at once, instead of concentrating on a singular season.

Now I will say it once more. Calm. Down. The5₉ (Talk) 07:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds like an intolerant overreaction to the addition of 2 useful links to a table. It was not a "bold edit", it was a common sense application of hyperlinks as reccommended in the guidelines. That an editor with a history of removing such links reacted irrationally and deleted them again with no reasonable explanation is more of a reason to replace them than to leave them gone.

You say there was no problem with the article before I edited it; I disagree, it lacked the appropriate links in the calendar table, which is why I edited it. If a discussion resulting in a decision never to include intuitive links in the calendar table then I would like to see it, but to say "A discussion likely did take place" is not terribly compelling now, is it?

Although you repeat it again, adding appropriate links is not bold. The written words are not changed, just made more useful to computer savvy readers who wish to navigate to more specific articles. So I do not accept your criticism, on that basis.

Get. Real. Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For all your familiar, unconvincing bluster, you always miss the same thing. You saying that you don't accept someone's (or anyone's) criticism, and that your unpopular edits are simple common sense, is meaningless. Nobody agrees with you, hence what you want won't happen. Either accept it and move on, or wrangle on until the inevitable block - the choice is yours. You're only accelerating towards the latter when you antagonise people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody admits to agreeing with me, no. That doesn't mean they don't though. I get a strange vibe and sense a strange atmosphere in these "discussions". I can't quite put my finger on it, but I can't help feeling that whatever I say or do will never be agreed with and will always be vehemently opposed, whether it is good or bad. What's with the the "block" threat thing? Who here has the power to enforce a "block", and upon what? Eff Won (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not simply been adding two links to a table. You did that in your first edit, but every further edit after that has been edit warring, being destructively bold, and accusing other editors of misdeeds. It was not a bold edit when you made it the first time, but your continued attempts to press your opinion on the articles through edit warring has been bold, especially as you have been told repeatedly to stop.

The editor does not have a history, there was a group consensus to remove the links and he was the editor to make the change. A reasonable explanation was offered to you by multiple editors, you have simply deemed it "unreasonable". This does not make it a fact. The same goes for what you feel is appropriate, as there is absolutely no requirement anywhere in Misplaced Pages policy that states your edit must be made to an article.

Here is real - your edits have been malicious and you are closing in on possible reprimand for your actions. Certainly an administrator will be able to tell you if your opinions on reasonable, both in the actions of others and yourself, are correct. The5₉ (Talk) 04:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made a very few, modest edits. I haven't vandalised the articles or removed content from them. I've just tried to add 2, and restore 2 columns of useful links where they were sorely missing, and tried to merge a duplication of information and and clumsy standalone quote into the prose of a paragraph. And for my trouble I have been virtually ostracised and made to feel wholly unwelcome.

You say there was a consensus to remove the links from the calendar tables, but neither you or others alluding to such a thing, has been able to show it to us. You say reasonable explanations were offered - I disagree - they were largely unreasonable, unfounded, misleading and even false assertions.

I may have reacted to the provocation of one particularly single-minded user in kind, but I am finding my feet, and felt threatened, even intimidated by him. But nothing I did was malicious or for any purpose other than improving the articles. You now appear to be threatening some sort of discipliniary sanctions. I see others are throwing shit and making grossly exaggerated allegations of what I am supposed to have done, presumably in the hope that some of the shit will stick and my name will be smeared, that reflects more on their characters than on mine though.

Eff Won (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been nothing modest about your editing behaviour. You had spat in the face of consensus, engaged in multiple edit wars, attempted to branch discussion to at least four different pages, and made grossly unwarrented accusations against those who are more experienced than you. Attempting to branch the discussions to the 2010 and 2011 articles is malicious, and you know damn well what you were doing when you made these edits. The literal text or coding that you have changed in the articles is only a minor point of the problem you have created.

Consensus is here. You were shown this link on Talk:2012 Formula One season, but you seem to have dropped the debate section where this link was shown.

If you are going to accuse anyone here of lying, then I suggest you start supplying evidence immediately.

Edit warring is a blockable offense. We don't need any opinions, allegations, or to throw shit for an administrator to block you for it. The only person smearing your name is you. Unfounded accusations of lying and conspiracies by editors to subvert your actions is also a simple blockable offense. You could be arguing with anyone on Misplaced Pages and the result would still be the same for you. The5₉ (Talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about "consensus", yet have failed to provide evidence of any. You provided a link to this discussion, which was mostly another user attempting to reason with our friend here, in a similar way to that which I have recently attemped, and being met with the same obstinate refusal to see reason as I was here. The points are almost identical and the cause was almost identical - a unilateral removal of the links. Two other users also chipped-in, one supported keeping the links, the other was non-committal, wavering between remove/kepp, so it could hardly be described as a consensus for removal!!! I do not recognise most of the rest of what you accuse me of, and where is the edit warring that you are alluding to? What exactly is your agenda here? Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Claiming there is no evidence when you were just provided with a link makes this entire discussion moot. If you do not believe there was consensus to remove the links in the first place, that is fine, but it is also moot as the article has remained this way for over a year. Keep in mind that the user you claim to be similar to was later banned from Misplaced Pages for his behaviour and editing tactics. And yes, we have noticed the similarity between the editing and arguing tactics of you and De Facto. Further, please do not confuse "reasoning" with "opinion". If you think we are just pulling our arguements out of our asses, then this discussion is never going to go anywhere.

The discussion now currently has no consensus and thus the article remains as is by default. This doeos not mean it reverts back to the mid-2011 status.

That you ignore the fact that you were edit warring, and that you assume I have an agenda means that this conversation no longer serves a purpose. There is no consensus therefore your desired edits will not be made. The5₉ (Talk) 21:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a consensus to delete the links. The old discussion linked to does not result in a consensus to do anything, no matter how often you, or anyone else, insists that it does. It's not that I don't believe there was a consensus, it's that, despite several assertions that there is one, and several requests for evidence of such, there has been no evidence to support the assertions ever provided. The 2010 and 2011 articles still had the links less than six months ago, at which time they were removed without even discussion, let alone consensus, and by the same user who had apparently done it before, been challenged about it, and not achieved a consensus for it then either. I call that sneaky opportunism, hoping no-one would notice. The last long-term stable condition of those two articles was with the links in place, and without a consensus to remove them, given the controversial history and previous attempts to remove them, they should be restored.

And please drop the intimidatory rhetoric. That someone who disagreed with the removal, with no supportable reason, of those links, as I do, was later banned, does not persuade me that I am wrong to stick to my principles of fairness and decency over this. I honestly now believe, particularly because no-one can find evidence to support a contrary view, and have indeed provided evidence to support my view, that the links were removed in an underhand way, so should now be replaced.

I perceive from your tone change over the consensus assertions that you are beginning to realise that I might have a case here, but are not yet prepared to support me in this. It now appears to be an in-group - out-group conflict. Eff Won (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is, once again, out of touch with reality. Take your evidence to WP:ANI. The5₉ (Talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won, I would advise you to seriously consider how you present yourself to other editors around here. Some of your actions and your attitudes since registering with Misplaced Pages have been deplorable. And yet at every turn, you have been met with nothing but civility and courtesy at every turn. Some of your actions have been more than enough to deserve a block from editing, and the administrators are well aware of what you have been doing. I suggest you tone down the aggression, and take the time to consider the idea that other editors may raise valid points instead of assuming that they are all idiots and you are the only one capable of making a well-informed decision. Perhaps you could even consider the notion of working with us, rather than trying to inflict your ideas and opinions upon us. Because if you continue the way you have been, your days here are numbered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, having witnessed your behaviour towards me, I do not respect your judgment or your advice. I would, in turn, advise you to examine your own behaviour before making the the holier than though sermons. Do you honestly believe that your behaviour to me has been either civil or courteous? And how long have you been editing Misplaced Pages? If either one of us deserves a "block" over this, it certainly isn't me. Some others here have been more restrained, even gracious, and I respect them for that, and am sorry if I have been a bit like a bull at a gate in the way I have gone about things. However, we must all co-exist now, so let's try and respect each other, shall we? Eff Won (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour towards you has been far more courteous or civil than your behaviour towards us. You have shown no respect for anyone's judgement or advice, and in fact have gone out of your way to do the exact opposite of any advice given to you. I can honestly say that no one you have been involved with in this problem over the past few days feels that you have shown any sort of respect, as you have flat out insulted damn near everyone here. The5₉ (Talk) 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The "judgements", based on the "evidence" thus far provided, that I am flouting "consensus" don't deserve any respect. They are unfounded. My edits were condemned, I asked why, I was served-up a cart-load of bullshit, threats and bad faith allegations, and you now have the audacity to complain about my behaviour in those circumstances? I now believe that you are trying to bait me, so I am not going to bite anymore. Eff Won (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your case to Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. The5₉ (Talk) 21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that the best way to play this do you think? It sounds a bit like resorting to foul play, rather than logic in an attempt to win a debate. No one respects a snitch, after all. Eff Won (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Eff Won, I don't understand why you don't go to ANI, like I told you two days ago. You clearly feel you have a very strong case, and nobody there is connected with any of us, so your fear of the cabal working against you is unfounded there. I don't think anyone else here is going to tell you anything you want to hear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You sound to enthusiastic about that idea, as you did the other day. I smell a rat. I suspect that you know something about going there that I haven't encountered yet, and probably not something that would benefit from. I'll bide my time. On the other hand, if you have come round to my way of thinking now, feel free to go there yourself. Eff Won (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You smell a rat? Hmmm... it's fair to say nobody here is going to come around to your way of thinking. Whatever the hell that is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no longer a debate, therefore there is nothing to win. There is simply your behaviour and your belief in our behaviour. You have made numerous claims of underhandedness, rules breaking, collusion, control of articles, and now apparently "rats", and other unbecoming behaviours, and your biggest concern is losing respect as a snitch? This makes your accusations worth fuck all. If you feel that you should avoid staking a claim against other editors who are apparently breaking rules, because you feel it might harm your case, then you have no case.

In other words, you are now a complete waste of time. The5₉ (Talk) 22:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, and I do not believe in involving outside powers to force a result. External, artificial, discipline breeds resentment and will inevitably lead to contempt of and disrespect for the system. It is always more productive to thrash these things out between the involved parties, and a more amicable outcome will almost inevitably be the result, in my experience, in other fields, at least. Eff Won (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not using the system in place to deal with such situations and allow for outside perspective from uninvolved parties shows completely respect for the system... Clearly, your system of not involving anyone else has been productive so far! You don't believe a word we say, and we're tired of dealing with you. Production! The5₉ (Talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2012 Formula One season. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. The5₉ (Talk) 20:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This warning template seems to sum everything up succinctly. You are in a content dispute and have no consensus, therefore you should not be editing the article. Feel free to seek outside assistance in this dispute. The5₉ (Talk) 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive in what I was doing there, it was pure housekeeping. I was removing duplicate links from the prose as required by WP:REPEATLINK. I was careful to leave the duplicates in the tables and picture captions for now, pending discussion. I am not in a content dispute about the duplicate links, I am in a content dispute about missing links. Please explain your allegation in more detail, with reference to the applicable policies and guidelines. Eff Won (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are in the middle of a discussion over the very policies you have named. There is no consensus for your edits, therefore you should not be editing the article. Period. The5₉ (Talk) 20:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute, it a guideline compliance discussion. I pointed out some of the non-compliances. No-one has disagreed about the duplicates. I am now (or at least was) being proactive in doing something about it. Why don't you help, rather than hinder that process? Eff Won (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has not reached a conclusion. As already pointed out, your view of "compliance" seems out of touch with reality. Further, your original edits on Misplaced Pages were to add more links to the article, so which is it now: Less links, or more links? The5₉ (Talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has added anything there in 20 hours. When do discussions "reach a conclusion"? Do you think 22 hyperlinks to the same article demonstrates compliance? Can't you see that we need less duplicate links and more missing links? Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a topic for debate. And hence since you have a debate, you have no consensus, and you should not be editing the article. The5₉ (Talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won, you're new here. In my experience the chaps at WP:F1 have their way of doing things re F1-related articles. Your best bet over this issue is to raise a request for comment at WT:F1. I understand that you are actong in good faith, but for now please desist from multiple unlinking, otherwise you may get blocked. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, do you? Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A friendly voice at last! Have you seen this kind of reaction from them there before? Eff Won (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have raised an RFC as you suggested, thanks. Eff Won (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Friendly advice

Hi, I notice you're new here and have come up against what may appear to be somewhat of a brick wall in the form of existing editors. I can empathise with your situation as I have been in a similar position, however I think you may have been unlucky in who chose to pull you up on your "mistake" - it's fair to say that some editors are a little more forgiving than others! That's not to say he doesn't have a point, and it's also not to say that he couldn't have phrased his replies better. As I've said on the WP:F1 talk page, we're not here to start arguments that escalate to about 10 comments on each side, we're here to improve WP:F1. If someone reverts your edits, it's almost certainly because they believe the article was better before the edits. Now, I know exactly how it feels to put a lot of time and effort into an edit that ends up being discarded because the consensus is that it's unnecessary - it feels like your efforts aren't valued and can put you off making further edits. Like I say, there are two sides to this dispute - personally, I would say that a consensus had been reached against your edits (and may do again in the discussion I've started at WP:F1 talk), however I would have liked to have seen the editor that reverted them give you a bit more of an explanation for why (instead of, as you say, just saying "we don't do that"). What I will say, Re: your comment about WP:F1 having different "rules" to other sections of Misplaced Pages, is that different sections will have their own focuses, which can mean that a variety of things are different. In F1, for example, there are a lot of stats and figures, which means that it's practically impossible to find an article that comes under WP:F1 that doesn't have a table in it. So the "rules" to which you refer (which are actually guidelines - doesn't make them any less useful, though) can be slightly different to accommodate this. So I would advise you to be more accepting of consensus if and when it's reached - but it is also down to other editors to explain why your edits are reverted. I won't get all hardball here, but I would say anyone who edit-wars consistently (that includes both sides of a dispute) risks alienating other editors, and makes it less likely for them to be willing to help you make good edits and articles, which is, after all, why we're all on here. Allypap81 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Allypap81, for your efforts to understand and diffuse the problems I have caused, your words of wisdom are very much appreciated. Eff Won (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I can do no better than the default description, "The Resilient Barnstar may be given to an editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile." Your good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are appreciated. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

When you find the time, have a bit of WikiFUN. Editor Pluma created a page of FUN STUFF for his adoptees. Have a look and take a bit of time to build your user page. It's editing practice with a purpose. For now, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the accolade! It put a smile on my face for the first time since being slapped down after my first edit. :-) Eff Won (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You were not "slapped down". At all. Your edits were taken in good faith, but they were reverted because they went against an established consensus. You weren't to know that at the time, but there is nothing in Misplaced Pages guidelines that says an editor's first edits must always be accepted. For someone so familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, I am surprised you did not know that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My first edit was, as I said, slapped down. And it was slapped down by you, just 16 minutes afer I made it, and with the brusque edit summary: "Undid revision 510402759 by Eff Won (talk) we don't do that". You gave no reasoned explanation as to why "we don't do that". It looked to me like precisely the sort of thing we DO do, millions of times over, and throughout Misplaced Pages, which is why I put it there in the first place. Eff Won (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages users who received a Teahouse invitation