Wikipedia talk:Copies of Wikipedia content (undetermined or disputed compliance)
Appearance
I just had to rollback Anthony DiPierro's listing of Wikipedia as GFDL-non-compliant again. I would like to avoid edit wars like this. Anyone have ideas for how to avoid them? Jwrosenzweig 00:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah. Don't revert the same edit more than once. Anthony DiPierro 00:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- These pages should not be for discussing how Wikipedia itself meets, or doesn't meet, its requirements. It is about other sites that use copies of Wikipedia. That much seems obvious. I strongly encourage Anthony to recognise that, so that a needless edit war doesn't arise. Anthony? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I believe I am normally very patient (as I hope my record will attest), but Anthony, you are beginning to make me irritated--if you do not make the same edit twice (after having been reverted), there will be no second revert. I think we can discuss this reasonably--please do not make any further edits that list Wikipedia as non-GFDL compliant, and let's talk this over. Jwrosenzweig 00:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Don't revert the same edit more than once. Anthony DiPierro 00:40, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, repeating yourself may be seen as an argument tactic in some circles, but I find it a particularly unproductive method of conflict resolution. I would appreciate it if you did not do this. Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Heed your own advice. Anthony DiPierro 00:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, repeating yourself may be seen as an argument tactic in some circles, but I find it a particularly unproductive method of conflict resolution. I would appreciate it if you did not do this. Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Don't revert the same edit more than once. Anthony DiPierro 00:40, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I believe I am normally very patient (as I hope my record will attest), but Anthony, you are beginning to make me irritated--if you do not make the same edit twice (after having been reverted), there will be no second revert. I think we can discuss this reasonably--please do not make any further edits that list Wikipedia as non-GFDL compliant, and let's talk this over. Jwrosenzweig 00:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- For the time being I've stopped editing, as it's at least two against at least one. But I don't see why these pages can't be used for discussing wikipedia compliance as well. Is there a page which can be used for this? Anthony DiPierro 00:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I would suggest the mailing lists, again. If you would like article space, I think any problem with Wikipedia is an issue for the whole project to address...that would mean creating an article at meta.wikipedia.org. Those would be my suggestions, Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Not all projects use the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 00:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I would suggest the mailing lists, again. If you would like article space, I think any problem with Wikipedia is an issue for the whole project to address...that would mean creating an article at meta.wikipedia.org. Those would be my suggestions, Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- For the time being I've stopped editing, as it's at least two against at least one. But I don't see why these pages can't be used for discussing wikipedia compliance as well. Is there a page which can be used for this? Anthony DiPierro 00:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)