Tony Sideway wrote:
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?
The problem is how to deal with POV warriors, who insert POV and original
research into articles and then defend it to the death.
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?
Why, did you think it was about you, Tony?
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.
It is your opinion, of course, that it is never the best of a number of
*bad* choices, and that trying to preserve ensure that content in Wikipedia
actually follows its policies is "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.
Have you not been following the discussion? People have been pointing out
that that simply doesn't work in many cases, due to lack of time, or
interest in, or knowledge of, the subject area.
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.
This is not about me, and I haven't made that claim. For the third time,
please avoid personalizing this, and please avoid strawman arguments.
Jay.