| Revision as of 07:08, 25 April 2014 editTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors275,859 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:21, 25 April 2014 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 editsm typoNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Do you intend to whitewash this exercise by removing that is critical? I await a reply on my talk page. ] ] 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | Do you intend to whitewash this exercise by removing that is critical? I await a reply on my talk page. ] ] 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == For your involvement in the spectacle at ] == | |||
| {{trout}} But on a serious note, to repeat from the ]: An '''edit war''' occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly ] each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a ]. Users who engage in edit wars risk being ]. | |||
| I understand that you may have thought you had good reasons to make the latest , but as an established user, you are expected to know by now that it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" - especially when it was patently obvious by that point (from the number of times the closures/re-openings of the move discussion was being reverted ) that you were involving yourself in an edit war. That is, at the page was still disruptive, and will hopefully be the last in the series. You should also know better to spend more time trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion; two comments (including at the ANI which discussed these reversions) just before making your reversion did not suffice. | |||
| Essentially this is feedback to you as an editor about just one situation you were involved in. Although I am not bothered about whether you formally include it in your editor review or not, I do hope that you will take this on board and avoid unecessarily becoming an active involved participant in these sorts of situations in future. ] (]) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:21, 25 April 2014
Coherent reply policyIf I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise. |
|---|
 Born2cycle Talk Archives | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Conciseness razor listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conciseness razor. Since you had some involvement with the Conciseness razor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Your removal of my comments at the editor review you instigated
Do you intend to whitewash this exercise by removing anything that is critical? I await a reply on my talk page. Tony (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
For your involvement in the spectacle at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
But on a serious note, to repeat from the policy against edit-warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked.
I understand that you may have thought you had good reasons to make the latest revert, but as an established user, you are expected to know by now that it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" - especially when it was patently obvious by that point (from the number of times the closures/re-openings of the move discussion was being reverted ) that you were involving yourself in an edit war. That is, your reversion at the page was still disruptive, and will hopefully be the last in the series. You should also know better to spend more time trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion; two comments (including at the ANI which discussed these reversions) just before making your reversion did not suffice.
Essentially this is feedback to you as an editor about just one situation you were involved in. Although I am not bothered about whether you formally include it in your editor review or not, I do hope that you will take this on board and avoid unecessarily becoming an active involved participant in these sorts of situations in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)