Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies2

This action is acceptable, and I understand the motivation (in these circumstances), but it is not the ideal solution. Allowing some wiki-process would speed up mutual understanding.

I suggest an alternative solution, that on each page the viewpoints be declared with the disclosure template:

And editors should respect the disclosed viewpoints. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason we are having an edit war is that the warriors do not respect the other's viewpoint. Adding a pretty box will not fix that. WAS 4.250 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I must insist that the edit of mine that Salmon of doubt reverted did nothing to change the general perspective. I changed some words to make it, in my opinion, clearer and more likely to be answered.  I respect Salmon's opinion if he states explicitly that he disagrees, and explains why.
 * WAS, The mechanics of page-protection and disclosure templates are the same: they are both pretty boxes without any support from any technical feature; but if your edit is not welcomed because it falls outside some scope, the principal contributors are allowed (by the community consensus) to revert it. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, I consider it more fruitful if the point of view is disclosed in a clearer manner. Now all I know is that the page is written from "Salmon's point of view", which is not very illuminating. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask him on the talk page. My position is that the author of a statement is the final authority on whether a change to that statement changed its meaning or not; whether that author can clearly explain why or not. I don't get the feeling that edit warriors are all that reflective - more like reflexive. WAS 4.250 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to incorporate your edit. I will do so now. I was reading up on the pretty-boxes process here. Salmon of Doubt 17:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)