Talk Page Archives

We've been over this. I do not believe I have ownership over an article. What I believe is that your edits to the 2012 page are constructed in such a way that undermines the entire point of them. Listing the race as startsing in "2012 or 2013" negates the need for it to be included on the 2012 page, and you've long held the view that the 2012 page is unneccessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, remember the episode over the USGP? You refused to have it included in the table on the basis that it "might not happen" despite a contract existing and dozens of sources to support it. In the end, I had to go to WP:F1 and get a consensus from the community just to convince you to include it, when anybody else would have simply added it in without argument. You gave me some crap about having "higher standards of quality" or some such, and it didn't stick with anyone. So what the hell am I supposed to think when you've got a history of undermining pages like that simply because they don't adhere to your standards? We play by Wikipedia's rules, not yours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not assume good faith because I believe I have an historical precedent. That does not mean I automatically assume that you're up to something every time I see your edits, but that I question the need for them. I compare what existed and what it has been changed to before reverting edits and the reasons for making those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disliked edits that you made because they removed valid information from an article simply because you felt it was unworthy of inclusion and that you clearly felt that your standards were the ones we should adhere to, as opposed to the standards that the rest of Wikipedia follows as if you are somehow an authority on the subject. Add to that the fact that I needed to get consensus for what should have been a non-issue just to get important information edited into an article that on any other page and with any other editor would have been included as a matter of due course. I don't like your edits because you clearly subvert the entire article; you have made your dislike of it clear in the past and because your removal of this information subverts and undermines the page. You remove pertinent information with the end result being that the article is little more than a skeleton of itself, serving no purpose and therefore being a candidate for deletion. If you have an issue with the 2012 page existing, then put it to consensus like everybody else would do instead of being sneaky about it and trying to exorcise enough information to justify AfD simply because you don't think it's worthy. That's why I don't like you - because you think you're a law unto yourself and that you should have your way even when consensus disagrees with you. So go ahead, get a moderator involved. I've got at least three examples from that page where your actions have subverted and undermined a page. That's why I think you have an agenda: because you ignore consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My belief of the way the article should be reflects the way I believe Wikipedia should be: as whole and complete a resource of information as possible. Provided information is properly referenced and is noteworthy, then it should be included in some way shape or form. It is the way I have written every article, and the way I have seen every article written. When you removed that information about the USGP from the 2012 page, you violated my belief about what Wikipedia is - but when I went to WP:F1 and argued for its inclusion, I got a consensus that said I was right. I improve Wikipedia by including all relevant information. You do not - as I have said, you have a history of removing information because you do not like the edits made because they do not align with your self-confessed beliefs about what is worthy of inclusion. It's called Wikipedia and not Lucypedia for a reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point of view. I have for a long time. And I cannot say that I have ever agreed with it once. Now, you'll no doubt assume that I simply jump to conclusions, but I have already told you that I do not. I look at what was written, what was changed and what it means for the article before I revert any edits. And I have not seen any from you that I can genuinely say were for the better. They only ever seem to peddle an agenda. You seem to have constructed this into being a one-man conspiracy against you. I will continue to judge the respective strengths of an edit regardless of who made it in the first place. For ome reason, you seem to think this is all about you. It's not. You just happen to be the most visible member out there. If you were to look at some of the edits I make - particularly outside the Formula 1 section (try the NCIS articles; the list of characters page in particular demonstrates this) - you'll see that this is the way I work on Wikipedia: assess the page, examine the edits made and follow through with neccessary changes for the benefit of the article. I have no further interest in discussing the matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify in what way is my recommendation for you to read wp:Civil, wp:own and wp:consensus any different from your repeated insistence that we all read wp:mos?

Throughout the Top gear discussions you have:

• refused to listen to other opinions - continually reverted to your own prefered format - wp:own & wp:consensus
• Insisted on using the terms "must" in your arguments, rather than the more friendly "should", or even better "in my opinion should" - wp:civil
• dodged answering questions about other formats suggested, or what you actually find either confusing or wrong about suggested formats - wp:civil
• suggested to other editors that they should read wp:mos when it could equally apply to you - except that it doesn't because MOS is about the style of an article, not the content - or even the potential cruftiness of the content.

I also see that your editing style & insistence is not recent with regard to Top Gear - several times in the past [1][2][3] you have removed the alternate descriptions, only for them to have been re-inserted by multiple editors. Note the important difference here - there are more editors re-inserting the details than there are removing them. a_man_alone (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]