Misplaced Pages

User talk:BrianH123

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustinWick (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 15 January 2006 (Reversion and Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:09, 15 January 2006 by JustinWick (talk | contribs) (Reversion and Discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Leave me a message

Protecting WP:AUTO

Hello, Brian. You asked me about protecting WP:AUTO, though you later removed your question. This is possible, but it doesn't seem to be necessary to me yet. One thing to keep in mind is that it does not matter that much what is written. It is the rather nebulous "consensus" among editors which guides Misplaced Pages, and if what is written in some guideline does not agree with this consensus, then the guideline will in effect be ignored. However, if Democritus continues edit warring, then action will be taken (not by me, of course). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- BrianH123 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion and Discussion

Greetings Brian, (or at least I would think that is your name) Because Omnipotence Paradox is a featured article, I believe it is in the best interest of everyone for it to be reverted to the original, peer reviewed status, for the time being. This is not to say that I think your edits or bad, or that a rewrite is unnecessary, however, several things:

  1. 1. If it's completely rewritten, the fact that it's been "peer reviewed" should be amended on the talk page to make it clear that it is a previous incarnation, not the current that has been reviewed.
  2. 2. If it passed peer review - that is, no one seemed to think it was significantly flawed - maybe it is better to get more viewpoints on this issue than your own. I know that wikipedia is about being bold etc, but group consensus etc also plays a part.
  3. 3. I think that you should discuss your objections etc on the discussion page, referring to your rewrite as an example of how you feel the article should be.

I didn't get a chance to fully read your version of the article, but the article as it was was chosen as a representative of the very best articles on all of wikipedia, and I believe it is more appropriate for you to challenge that via discussion, than by simply throwing the article out and starting over. Please do not take this action personally - in fact I encourage you to get support on the talk page for your version if you believe you can. Best of luck! - JustinWick 07:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)