JAY JG said:
>
>
>>I mean, you expect to
>>get into an edit war and then ask others to either come to your
>>assistance or relax the 3RR so you are permitted to continue?
>
> I don't "expect to get into an edit war", nor have I ever suggested
> "relaxing" the 3RR;.
Okay, so if you won't get into an edit war and you won't hve a problem
with 3RR enforcement if you do, what is the problem? Has the topic of
this discussion drifted while I wasn't looking?
>
>>I think this is a highly contentious way of interacting on Wikipedia,
>>and not one to be condoned. Talk pages exist for a good purpose.
>
> Indeed they do. If only people used them, rather than POVing and
> "original research"ing articles, and then edit-warring to preserve
> their POV and original research insertions.
So this is all about "other" people, then?
>
>>Revert
>>limits and guidelines counseling against edit warring also exist for a
>>good purpose. Edit warring is *not* considered a good way of dealing
>>with problems.
>
> No, it's not; however, it is sometimes the best of a number of bad
> choices. If only there were other remedies that actually worked
> effectively all the time.
>
Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough: edit warring is seen as a major
problem. It is never "the best of a number of choices" to engage in
silly warring. Where there is an edit dispute, get more people to look
at the article. That solves the problem far quicker and more effectively
than tit-for-tat editing. I simply don't buy your claim that you alone
are capable or and willing to determine which of two people, you and the
other edit warrior, is doing good edits.