| Revision as of 00:54, 12 August 2011 editQwyrxian (talk | contribs)57,186 edits full EW & 3RR explanation in lieu of block← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:57, 12 August 2011 edit undoFreemanSA (talk | contribs)105 edits →Edit warringNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ==Edit warring== | ==Edit warring== | ||
| Hi FreemansSA. It looks like you're having a dispute with a variety of different users about what content belongs in ]. When that happens, Misplaced Pages requires that editors attempt to work our their differences through discussion, not just through continually reverting each other. In fact, our policy says that any editor who is ]--that is, reverting regularly without consensus--can be blocked from editing. Exactly what qualifies as edit-warring is somewhat subjective, but you're definitely crossing the line. More importantly, in this case, there is a very specific, unbreakable rule, called ]. This rule says that except in very rare circumstances that don't apply here, you cannot undo the changes of another editor more than 3 times in 24 hours (note that this isn't just hitting the "undo" button--it refers to any edit you make that reverts or undoes the work of another editor, even if you do it by hand). If you do, you will definitely be blocked temporarily. You've actually already reverted on that article 4 times in 24 hours, but since you weren't explicitly warned, I'm not going to block you. However, if you do revert again, I will do so. At this point, you have to go to ] and try to gain ] for your desired changes. If you cannot, there are a series of steps called our ] that you can follow; note, though, that decisions are ultimately based on Misplaced Pages policies, like ] and ], not based on our own opinions about what is "true" or "good". ] (]) 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | Hi FreemansSA. It looks like you're having a dispute with a variety of different users about what content belongs in ]. When that happens, Misplaced Pages requires that editors attempt to work our their differences through discussion, not just through continually reverting each other. In fact, our policy says that any editor who is ]--that is, reverting regularly without consensus--can be blocked from editing. Exactly what qualifies as edit-warring is somewhat subjective, but you're definitely crossing the line. More importantly, in this case, there is a very specific, unbreakable rule, called ]. This rule says that except in very rare circumstances that don't apply here, you cannot undo the changes of another editor more than 3 times in 24 hours (note that this isn't just hitting the "undo" button--it refers to any edit you make that reverts or undoes the work of another editor, even if you do it by hand). If you do, you will definitely be blocked temporarily. You've actually already reverted on that article 4 times in 24 hours, but since you weren't explicitly warned, I'm not going to block you. However, if you do revert again, I will do so. At this point, you have to go to ] and try to gain ] for your desired changes. If you cannot, there are a series of steps called our ] that you can follow; note, though, that decisions are ultimately based on Misplaced Pages policies, like ] and ], not based on our own opinions about what is "true" or "good". ] (]) 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| : Objectively is the one who started to revert and has done way more than 3 reversion therefore you should warn him and not me because he is crying. --] (]) 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:57, 12 August 2011
Khamis Gaddafi
I have some trouble with a recent edit you made to the biography on Khamis Gaddafi. Both sides in the Libyan conflict have used propaganda, and have been manipulative of international media, if not outright lying to it. So adding the phrase "it was proven to be false" seems to place Misplaced Pages in the position of choosing one untrustworthy side over the other, and that's something we need to avoid here. Even the Fox News article the phrase was sourced to only refers to "a man Libyan state television said was Muammar al-Qaddafi's youngest son". If the source is unsure, then we can't use it to make a definitive claim one way or another with words like "proven". Thanks!--Objectively (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Khamis appeared on Libyan TV, it was clearly him, and referred to events happenned after his rumored death. Debate is over and rumor debunked like the previous one.--FreemanSA (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to keep the article unbiased, but your edits would have us represent Gaddafi's point of view only. Our reliable sources reporting on this story still place reports in context with phrases like "according to Libyan state television..." or "Khamis Gaddafi's appearance, if genuine...". So we need the article to reflect the uncertainly of its sources. Thanks!--Objectively (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to open discussion here and on the talk page, but you've started edit warring with me and other editors, and that's really unacceptable. I've alerted administrators to help close this issue.--Objectively (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to support Objectively here. Any attempt on our part to interpret WP:RS is WP:POV, something explicitly discouraged by Misplaced Pages guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi FreemansSA. It looks like you're having a dispute with a variety of different users about what content belongs in Khamis Gaddafi. When that happens, Misplaced Pages requires that editors attempt to work our their differences through discussion, not just through continually reverting each other. In fact, our policy says that any editor who is edit warring--that is, reverting regularly without consensus--can be blocked from editing. Exactly what qualifies as edit-warring is somewhat subjective, but you're definitely crossing the line. More importantly, in this case, there is a very specific, unbreakable rule, called WP:3RR. This rule says that except in very rare circumstances that don't apply here, you cannot undo the changes of another editor more than 3 times in 24 hours (note that this isn't just hitting the "undo" button--it refers to any edit you make that reverts or undoes the work of another editor, even if you do it by hand). If you do, you will definitely be blocked temporarily. You've actually already reverted on that article 4 times in 24 hours, but since you weren't explicitly warned, I'm not going to block you. However, if you do revert again, I will do so. At this point, you have to go to Talk:Khamis Gaddafi and try to gain consensus for your desired changes. If you cannot, there are a series of steps called our dispute resolution process that you can follow; note, though, that decisions are ultimately based on Misplaced Pages policies, like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, not based on our own opinions about what is "true" or "good". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Objectively is the one who started to revert and has done way more than 3 reversion therefore you should warn him and not me because he is crying. --FreemanSA (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)