| Revision as of 00:57, 23 March 2015 editMr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,191 edits →Electronic cigarette: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:16, 13 December 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Levelledout/Archive 5) (botTag: Manual revert |
| (186 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| algo = old(14d) |
|
| algo = old(14d) |
|
| archive = User talk:Levelledout/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = User talk:Levelledout/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 5 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 20K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 20K |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk:Levelledout Archive}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk:Levelledout Archive}} |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
== Electronic cigarette == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Levelledout. I see that you've just made a revert at the ] article. Rather than reverting wholesale, please discuss changes on the talk page, otherwise it could result in a block. I'm sure that you've read it already, but if not, then please familiarise yourself with the ]. Thank you. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello ]. Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Is there any chance that you could look into the fact that a particular user managed to get the , then almost immediately made 17 edits in two hours including a ? It seems very difficult to actually work together to achieve consensus when this is happening.] (]) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello again ], would you mind giving me a bit more feedback on this issue please? I know it's been a few days since you sent the original message but I'm wondering whether you are asking me not to revert whole/multiple edits at once just on e-cigarette articles or something else? Does this restriction apply to me or all editors? I ask because as I hope you understand I don't want to get blocked. Also, I wonder if you would mind pointing out to me which policy or guideline I was in violation of in order to receive the above warning? If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed. I have read through the edit-warring policy and am at a loss to how that particular revert could have been considered edit-warring. There was no back-and-forth reverts, the process was simply 10k of changes from user > I reverted. It was also, to my recollection, the first time I have ever reverted multiple edits at once, therefore not something that I do routinely.] (]) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My previous message wasn't an official restriction, but rather a warning, and I was only warning you about the ] article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the ] strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the ] it can still count as edit warring and still result in a block.) And yes, it was the edit-warring policy I was referring to. To be clear, one edit by itself usually doesn't constitute edit-warring; rather, I wanted to warn you about the policy before the situation got out of hand. Hope this clears things up. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
