User talk:Pinkythecorgi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, jpgordon.

I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I have tried to make my position clear on the Discussion page (Bloc Quebecois). I have been trying to improve the article through balancing the POV of its intro. Those who have a stake in this article will have none of it, nor will they discuss it, nor will they suggest alternate text that they find more acceptable. They just keep reverting back to the original version that does nothing more than mirror what this political party says about itself. One might suspect that they are partisans but I can't know that for sure. Please understand that "sovereignty" in the context of Canadian national unity is decidely not a NPOV, it is a political slogan for one side just as "separatism" is for the other. This is not a huge deal for me, life is short, but there is an issue of academic quality control here that Wikipedia itself might like to monitor.

Pinkythecorgi (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your frustration; it's a side-effect of the decision-by-consensus model which is the basis of Wikipedia policy. Our article on dispute resolution might be helpful; it suggests how to get more eyes on the article and on the particular edit you're trying to make. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your response. Do you think it would be best to give those who have been unwilling to consider my text 24 hours from my last posting and then ask for a third party review? Is there a way to just send this along to an academic editor? An expert in the field would understand that employing "sovereignty" alone to describe the principal goal of the Bloc Quebecois is decidedly not NPOV any more than using "separatist" would be.Pinkythecorgi (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "academic editors" here; an editor with a PhD in Quebecois politics would have exactly the same standing here as a schoolkid with her first computer. Just ask for a third party review now; and don't be in a big rush -- there's nothing terrible about a piece of an article being phrased incorrectly for a day or four. (There are exceptions to this -- we're real picky about what we say about living people.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]