User talk:BrianH123
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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 Wikipedia, 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)
[edit] 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. 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. 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. 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)
- Justin, this wasn't a rewrite. I know I put that in the edit summary, but it was more a rearranging of the existing information. I really wish you had read the article before you reverted. I did not "throw it out and start over"! Also, please do a diff from the time of the peer review to now. You'll see the article is nothing like it was when it was peer reviewed. BrianH123 07:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks! --BrianH123 00:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Jimbo's bio
I explained why I made the change in that one sentence on the talk page of the article. I don't want this to become an edit war; maybe we should ask Jimbo how he thinks the sentence should be written. 69.138.229.246 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reply on the talk page. Thanks. --BrianH123 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question / edit comment
In the edit comment you wrote "Comaze: moving the part of your comments that don't have anything to do with the proposed consensus guidelines to their own section"[1].. Did you intend to address HeadleyDown? --Comaze 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ooops, I'm so sorry. Yes I did. --BrianH123 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
