User talk:Bertrc

Welcome!

Hello, Bertrc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

red Hulk.

Re: [1] Well, I've removed it. This will be the only time I do this for you. Wikipedia isn't about 'thinking of the children' and other imbecilic crap that the far right christian mindset demands of the rest of the world, though they're all flaming hypocrites about it. Read WP:CENSORED. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded - [2] --Bertrc (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

First off, I want to say that I understand your viewpoints and I want to remind you that I was open to including it in the plot summary, but it seemed to raise too many problems putting it in. However, i am concerned that you are pressing your viewpoint too much, and that's the real problem. I mean, look at your edit history and see how many of your edits are about this one little thing. I have no problem if there's consensus for a workable solution, but right now there isn't but you're trying to plough through regardless. As I said before, just take a step back and wait for others to agree with you; if it happens it happens. Until then, we can't keep that bit in the plot summary. All I ask is you wait until a consensus to form on your viewpoint; that's all. If it does, it goes back in. Don't try to force it in. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, and I certainly have appreciated your viewpoints. The concept of consensus, though, is a tricky thing. IMHO, in terms of adding or deleting, it cuts both ways. Also, how do you weigh all the anonymous edits in terms of consensus? The last two or three times, I stopped adding my info in directly, and started waiting for somebody else to add it (I never had to wait long) I knew their versions would be reverted as written (usually without explanations) so I would edit their text to take into account issues that had been discussed. I did go directly against your recent reverts, however, because you didn't actually give an opinion on the Journal or the text; you seemed to be reverting purely based on your interpretation of wiki-policy which I felt was not supported by the whole "Be Bold-Discuss-etc." thing-a-ma-bob. If consensus is your concern, I do wish you would give your opinion. I'm afraid that I only know the plot, and the journal is the only real issue I see with the plot summary (although I also do not like the flow of the Black Freighter paragraph, but I don't have a better proposal) That is why my edits are mostly on this. Still, as I said, you may be right, and I may be too focused on it. That's why I threw in the RFC, to get some outside perspective. Thanks for your attention, advice and . . . consideration . . . in all of this. --Bertrc (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically it's best to only take into account people who join the discussion on the talk page. A lot of people will edit pages without knowing whatever discussion is behind it; if they join a talk page discussion, then you at least know their motives. Anyways, I appreciate your many attempts to actually discuss the issue. I've been on so many other pages where people are insistent on adding things "just because". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, did you want to archive the other talk page discussions now that we have the RFC? I didn't archive them because I didn't know if you still wanted to use the sections, but the page is still pretty long. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, now you offer to archive.  :-) Since we just started the RFC, I suggest we leave them up for at least for a few days. Would you be able to adjust the links in my original RFC post to continue pointing to them after archiving? On an aside, I do not know the ettiquette for RFC's. I noticed that you and Hiding are not doing any additional indenting. Is that the style? Please feel free to adjust the location and indents of my posts. --Bertrc (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Discworld has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Res2216firestar 19:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)