User talk:Tam01
Add topicOctober 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Night Slashers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit war
[edit]
You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Rorschach test. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.
Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. 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.
Run another RfC if you think you can develop a new consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I also notice that you are Wikipedia:Canvassing. Ie selectively reaching out to people you feel will share you position. If you want to start another RfC, please reach out to everyone who weighted in here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- That is not an accurate characterization of what happened.You claimed that the overhaul lacked consensus.
- I contacted editors who had participated in the discussion that led to that consensus, so they could comment on whether consensus had in fact been reached before the changes were implemented. That is not the same as selectively canvassing for support. It is directly relevant to the specific claim being made. Tam01 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- The consensus to include all images and their common answers was via a RfC and was supported by approximately 60 editors. These editors were not notified of a small groups ongoing efforts to remove this material. If you think the communities position has changed than run another RfC. What your trying to do otherwise is inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think it is reasonable to suggest that every editor who participated in a 2009 RfC had to be individually notified before changes to the current article could be discussed or implemented? The 2025 overhaul was discussed on the article’s talk page, not done in secret, and consensus naturally evolves over time. I reached for the people who were involved on it. Tam01 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes I do. And yes another RfC is required to remove the details in question, at which time all the prior participants should be notified. I am well aware that their are certain folks for whatever reason who want to hide or minimise details regarding the Rorschach inkblots. In fact we had to use an edit filter for a time to prevent these efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- That does not mean editors should by default treat any effort to trim an overly long article as a censorship initiative, especially when the edits in question kept the debated content to begin with. Where would you recommend opening this discussion? at Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure, or at Talk:Rorschach_test/images? Tam01 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you are proposing removing the table with the 10 inkblots and common answers that would go at Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- That does not mean editors should by default treat any effort to trim an overly long article as a censorship initiative, especially when the edits in question kept the debated content to begin with. Where would you recommend opening this discussion? at Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure, or at Talk:Rorschach_test/images? Tam01 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes I do. And yes another RfC is required to remove the details in question, at which time all the prior participants should be notified. I am well aware that their are certain folks for whatever reason who want to hide or minimise details regarding the Rorschach inkblots. In fact we had to use an edit filter for a time to prevent these efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think it is reasonable to suggest that every editor who participated in a 2009 RfC had to be individually notified before changes to the current article could be discussed or implemented? The 2025 overhaul was discussed on the article’s talk page, not done in secret, and consensus naturally evolves over time. I reached for the people who were involved on it. Tam01 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- The consensus to include all images and their common answers was via a RfC and was supported by approximately 60 editors. These editors were not notified of a small groups ongoing efforts to remove this material. If you think the communities position has changed than run another RfC. What your trying to do otherwise is inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)