LifeWiki Edit War Reporting Thread

[unname4798]

i am the only thing in the way of stopping a domino chain effect happening and an edit war happening.

unname4798 removes red state
tommyaweosme adds tradition
unname4798 removes tradition - where we are now
tommyaweosme adds tradition back - what sparks the edit war
edit war officially begins
page gets protected
everyone is sad

The protection is only the last resort.

[tommyaweosme]

ok. its my userpage and im waiting for dvrgn. its ok if he takes long to get here i know he has something more important to do

[hotdogPi]

Unless it's a draft of an article that's intended to be published to mainspace, the user whose space it's in has the final say. (There are exceptions such as personal attacks being prohibited, but those obviously don't apply here.)

[tommyaweosme]

OCA:Neon blobs is a bit too unnotable to go to mainspace
OCA:Corners cant escape bounding diamond or something
OCA:Corners 2 is just not notable enough to even get its own userpage seperate from Corners 3
OCA:Sticky is the only one that is good enough to be out there (under my standards)
Wolfram logic gates requires a good renaming and a lot of syntax reworking to get to mainspace
same thing with T1R, so you dont need to get rid of the tradition thing
i could come up with a good excuse for almost everyone one of my userpages that it just doesnt belong on mainspace or requires hard work to get to mainspace. the thing is... tradition is notable enough for a userspace article that is intended to stay in userspace unless someone is willing to do an entire rework of the article

[Sokwe]

Tradition isn't notable.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history
its my userpage

That is not an edit war. The edit sequemce "edit-undo-reedit-reundo" repeated 2 or more times is an edit war.

It's tommyawesome's user page. Unname4798, do not revert someone's edit to their own user page. In general, you should avoid editing other people's user pages without their permission.

tommyaweosme, you can edit your own user page; you don't need to worry about it being considered an edit war. There's no reason to protect the page unless you request it. If someone is editing your user page in ways you do not want, you can ask them to stop. If they refuse, you can tell the moderators, and we will more forcefully tell them to stop.

[tommyaweosme]

ok. thanks :D

[confocaloid]

continuation of a recent edit war with someone making edits in someone else's userspace without their permission
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=150127

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146207

The edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146207 undoes an earlier change made in the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=121292

I don't see need for an additional picture in the lead, when there is already the infobox pattern and a link to the page Golly. I think the added picture clutters the lead, and should be either removed or moved away to a later section.

As a side note, the caption "Generation 2..." is confusing -- counting from which generation, exactly? The oscillator doesn't have any commonly-agreed "canonical phase" that could be used for counting. If the picture is kept somewhere, I think the caption should be changed to avoid asssigning any generation number.

EDIT by dvgrn: Moved the image to the end of the article, added a related detail. The usage as Golly's icon seems like the kind of trivia item that we usually put toward the bottom, kind of along the lines of the fairly common "In popular culture" section on Wikipedia.

[confocaloid]

• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=149509
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=150914
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=150915
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=150932

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=150914

I agree with the preceding change, and disagree with the linked revert. The oscillator is rotating, but it isn't a RRO in any useful sense.

Here is the oscillator in question (period 160, mod 40, Rot90CW), with visible reaction envelope:

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 18, rule = B3/S2-i34qHistory
10.B$5.B3.4B$4.3B.6B$3.12B$2.14B$.16B$.15B$11B2A2B$.8BA6B$2.6B2ABA5B$
3.5BA9B$2.6BA8B$.16B$2.14B$3.12B$4.6B.3B$5.4B3.B$7.B!

EDIT by dvgrn: I sent a PM to Haycat2009 suggesting that unname4798's most recent undo was a good place to stop the edit war and move on to try consensus-building via a discussion on this board, if the question seemed interesting enough to pursue.

It looks to me like unname4798 is using just the first paragraph of the RRO article as a justification for rolling back Haycat2009's changes -- whereas Haycat2009's use of the terms "unloopable" and "non-classical" are clearly an invocation of the alternative usage of "RRO" that is described in the fourth paragraph. The roots of that "classical" vs. "non-classical" subdivision can be traced back at least to 2017.

Seems like we might get a useful re-work of the RRO article out of this discussion -- or at least the summary of "loopability" that the article is currently requesting.

[unname4798]

The tradition about the destructive state in T1RDS being red is really false.

[pifricted]

The tradition about the destructive state in T1RDS being red is really false.

You can tell him in talk page.

[unname4798]

The tradition about the destructive state in T1RDS being red is really false.

You can tell him in talk page.

No, I can't, because I don't have a "trusted" flag.

[dvgrn]

The tradition about the destructive state in T1RDS being red is really false.

When you make a change to someone's user page, and that person reverts your change -- even just once -- that means that your change wasn't welcome. A moderator has already explained this to you. If you don't understand that explanation, please ask questions until you do understand it.

You've been using "notability" as a reason for continuing an edit war for three redo/undo cycles after that point. That's a sign that you don't understand LifeWiki rules -- notability isn't the main guiding principle outside of the main namespace. On user pages, if your edit is not welcome, don't keep on trying to make that edit -- it's not your user page.

I've removed your trusted flag. I can put it back as soon as you demonstrate that you understand the rules well enough to not participate in this kind of edit warring in the future.

As things stand, it's not clear where you are getting your opinion about T1RDS destructive state color. Maybe you could convince tommyaweosme to change the wording if you pointed to actual evidence somewhere, instead of just going back and forth indefinitely with these alternating "yes it is" / "no it isn't" edits with no other discussion.

[unname4798]

The tradition about the destructive state in T1RDS being red is really false.

When you make a change to someone's user page, and that person reverts your change -- even just once -- that means that your change wasn't welcome. A moderator has already explained this to you. If you don't understand that explanation, please ask questions until you do understand it.

You've been using "notability" as a reason for continuing an edit war for three redo/undo cycles after that point. That's a sign that you don't understand LifeWiki rules -- notability isn't the main guiding principle outside of the main namespace. On user pages, if your edit is not welcome, don't keep on trying to make that edit -- it's not your user page.

I've removed your trusted flag. I can put it back as soon as you demonstrate that you understand the rules well enough to not participate in this kind of edit warring in the future.

As things stand, it's not clear where you are getting your opinion about T1RDS destructive state color. Maybe you could convince tommyaweosme to change the wording if you pointed to actual evidence somewhere, instead of just going back and forth indefinitely with these alternating "yes it is" / "no it isn't" edits with no other discussion.

The tradition is actually a joke.

[dvgrn]

The tradition is actually a joke.

That's your unsubstantiated opinion. It may be true, it may not be true. You're not giving any evidence besides your one-line statement -- after a long, mostly irrelevant quotation. People have also asked you many times to trim down your quotes before posting, or else simply hit the "Reply" button instead of the "Quote" button to avoid the problem of long quotes. Please pay better attention to that detail.

However, whether the tradition is a "joke" or not is completely irrelevant here. Here's the relevant part of the quote:

I've removed your trusted flag. I can put it back as soon as you demonstrate that you understand the rules well enough to not participate in this kind of edit warring in the future.

[confocaloid]

[...]
The tradition is actually a joke.

Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. Regardless, it's an userpage (as opposed to an article in main namespace or in OCA: namespace); it's someone else's userspace (as opposed to your userspace); it's a case when your edits are apparently not welcome / are unwanted (as opposed to a case when there is an explicit permission from someone to edit their userpage and some meaningful constructive collaboration happens).

Pi-R-Squared spaceship is a joke that exists in the main namespace, where notability criteria actually apply. Whether or not that is a good thing is I guess up to the other people in the local community to determine. However, at least as long as it (and some similar cases) exists, I'm unlikely to see any issues with potential or actual jokes outside the main namespace, unless of course those potential or actual jokes are otherwise problematic for reasons other than their jokiness.

[confocaloid]

Multiple edit-warring changes by User:Muzik in various places across the wiki, as part of several recent/current large-scale editing campaigns without consensus

Unexplained reverts of an earlier attempt to match the orientation of the shown pattern that is given in Niemiec's database, in multiple RLE files including: [edit: further reading: viewtopic.php?p=193202#p193202]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=127465
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=127463
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=131284
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=116816
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=130638
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=142625
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=142626
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=127010

Multiple reverts on another topic:
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?targ ... tributions

Further reading: viewtopic.php?p=192982#p192982

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146732 adding an oscillator involving R133
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146769 removing the oscillator
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146771 adding the oscillator

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?targ ... tributions

An editing campaign by User:Galoomba, removing the "after" part from glider syntheses on many pages, without any preceding discussion and despite existence of objections to the removal.

Context:

The wiki edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152738 involves an undiscussed and unexplained removal of the "after" parts from synthesis RLEs.
The same applies to wiki edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=154784

When I added syntheses, I tried to follow Niemiec's database, by showing both the synthesis and the resulting object.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=148532
Repeated incorrect change from "if and only if" to "if".

"iff" is not a typo (and the use of an existing wiki template is sufficient evidence for it being there intentionally).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=114896

Not a typo. The intended meaning is "if and only if".

EDIT by dvgrn: hotdogPi has reverted the edit, and WhiteHawk has acknowledged the feedback.

[confocaloid]

Blinker fuse

• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=80681
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=82137
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156445

EDIT by dvgrn: It turns out it wasn't even BokaBB that discovered/rediscovered that fuse -- it was ColorfulGalaxy noticing something about a pattern made from BokaBB's username.

I've reverted the edit again. I had already done this once before (see second link above) so I have also removed CurrentNews's trusted flag for the time being.