A1Houseboy

It appears during my short experience with Wikipedea that:

1) if someone else has been associated with W. longer that their authority to wag the tail on W. trumps the contributions that can be made by others that follow. This is based on many articles of varying subjects, types, quantities and arrangement of information.

2) if appears that people who have this ability do not recognize the implications of their actions. By reverting the third opinion notice I was given the impression that you were along with the other reversers having more ability to impact the system than those that proceed. If in fact your action was preliminary then in order to avoid confusion should have said. If a point of "too much time" is offered then on what criteria is it that the "doer does." If something is significant then it deserves the appropriate attention.

3) following this experience I believe that it is something that I would not want to continue association since as has been seen over time various people have, for example, attempted to rid the world of those they perceive as both inconsequential and undesirable, this is the image with which I am present, not with one experience or one person but many. People have through time imposed things on people with the most sincere of reasons when in the long run these have been found fraught with problems. Look at the First Edition Encyclopedia Britanica asnd it clearly will show how what was then "acceptable" writing is today too confusing for any one to systematically explain. I must have been mislead by the person who told me about W. Good luck with the changes.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:The English Patient (film). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Email

In reference to your email to me, please see my reply to another editor here. - TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. Much appreciated.A1Houseboy 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Saving of record on NeverEndingDrama

Save for future reference:

Posted the following on talk page and was removed:

Another attempt to skew the record. You know that you were not in the process otherwise it would have happened. Day late and a dollar short! Until the next dispute, obviously to come shortly.A1Houseboy 03:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A false accusation. I was restoring the status quo while the discussion was ongoing. Sorry to see that so few admins appreciate that while content is under discussion, it's correct to return the article to the last previous consensus. That's what I did. You got it wrong, and I'd like you to recognize that. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What you are essentially talking about is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll note that this is not a policy, but an essay and clearly states it is not an exception to the edit warring policy. Simply saying, "I do not like the new edit, so I will continue to revert over and over to the status quo" is disruptive, goes against the concept of Wikipedia, and is blatant edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Apparently you are unaware that making a change to an article requires a consensus, per WP:consensus. When there is not a consensus for change, there's discussion, not a change to the article. I was completely correct to return the article to the status quo before there was a dispute. That status quo had been in place for five years, so it was hardly controversial. Sorry to learn that you're unaware of how that part of the policy works, but now you've been told. And if you thought about it for a minute, it would be obvious that introducing new material should require a consensus, otherwise correct information could not be kept in an article -- as happened in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Since people "archive" and "delete" and others do not always know where to get a fuller picture of incidents. To put up all that fuss, never state that during the discovery and then have the audacity after the fact to make it appear they were willing to "discuss" the issue. Another example where the administrator beat them to the punch with a rush to judgment. It strikes me as odd that this person of such self-declared skills that would seem to pertinent to the WP article development is not an administrator. Maybe that is why the WP hierarchy gets the blame in these disputes. About to change the content? And changing it during the discussion period? That is a stretch.76.170.88.72 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. Thought that these notices had to remain but I guess since they are routine. What an experience. I thought it was bad enough that words would get twisted in order to meet someone's goal. It will not be long before that is used again. What a move to do a 3r then turn around and say they were in the process of reverting and it was a "false accusation". At least it could have been neutral and said to be a "misunderstanding" which also would have been a twist of imagination. But when you have a burn attitude what else is going to follow? What a prescription for disaster.A1Houseboy 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NRHP listings

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places about current and former listings; I suggest you comment there to avoid splitting the discussion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)