| Revision as of 09:14, 27 November 2006 editAlecmconroy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,935 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:18, 27 November 2006 edit undoAlecmconroy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,935 edits →Stop undoingNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ==Stop undoing== | ==Stop undoing== | ||
| Prad, please stop edit warring over this. Your edit summary is incorrect. The GA reviewer liked my version better. The mediator suggested changes that I am implementing in this edit. How do you get the idea that they don't like a rewrite I've just done 2 hours ago? Let hte RFC take its course --] | Prad, please stop edit warring over this. Your edit summary is incorrect. The GA reviewer liked my version better. The mediator suggested changes that I am implementing in this edit. How do you get the idea that they don't like a rewrite I've just done 2 hours ago? Let hte RFC take its course --] | ||
| ==Stop this please== | |||
| Prad, i'm sorry to be difficult, you are a new "rednamed" user, your contributions constist exclusively of promoting Opus Dei. You are interfering with this RFC by repeatedly deleting my rewrite before people have had time to discuss it, and you are now in violation of the three revert rule. I ask you, nicely and sinerely, ''please'', undo your revert and let this RFC proceed so that people may comment on it. Otherwise, I will have to report you for violating 3rr and violating wikipedia is not a soapbox. --] 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:18, 27 November 2006
Opus Dei rewrite
Prad-- please do not revert the Opus Dei rewrite. There is an RFC being conducted on the subject, and if you edit war over it, the discussion will be harder to follow. If the consensus of good-faith editors is that the rewrite should be reverted, then it will be. Please allow that discussion to take place unimpeded, and allow other uninvolved editors to look over the new version and see if it has been an improvement. Not to be rude, but your contributions to Misplaced Pages thus far have been exclusively dedicated to the promotion of Opus Dei, so we really should let a consensus of uninvolved editors make this call. --Alecmconroy 08:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Prad, you are confusing mediation with arbitration. A mediator is not elected, has no bindning authority, and merely seeks to resolve the differencies between party. Additionally, a mediator does not decide in favor of either party, and indeed, the mediator suggested numerous changes--- i have worked hard to implement his suggestions about a response section in my rewrite, but the old article lacked the suggested response section despite my attempts to get one created. In no way is my rewrite "against" mediation.
If you are looking for someone to make a final binding determination, what you're thinking of is arbitration. You can request that the arbitration committee review the issue if you like, and that WOULD be binding. I suspect, however, that a consensus of outside editors will agree that the rewrite is an improvement, and arbitration will be unnecessary. --Alecmconroy 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop undoing
Prad, please stop edit warring over this. Your edit summary is incorrect. The GA reviewer liked my version better. The mediator suggested changes that I am implementing in this edit. How do you get the idea that they don't like a rewrite I've just done 2 hours ago? Let hte RFC take its course --Alecmconroy
Stop this please
Prad, i'm sorry to be difficult, you are a new "rednamed" user, your contributions constist exclusively of promoting Opus Dei. You are interfering with this RFC by repeatedly deleting my rewrite before people have had time to discuss it, and you are now in violation of the three revert rule. I ask you, nicely and sinerely, please, undo your revert and let this RFC proceed so that people may comment on it. Otherwise, I will have to report you for violating 3rr and violating wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Alecmconroy 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)