| Revision as of 01:12, 21 July 2005 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,210 edits my 2 cents← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:22, 21 July 2005 edit undoGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits Thank you. Zero reversion rate ideal goal rarely reached, but still good to keep in mind as a goal.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :'''''Answer:''''' The source page should not be reverted. | :'''''Answer:''''' The source page should not be reverted. | ||
| <font color=000099>Thank you. (I put this page on watchlist & saw your answer.) Keeping the source the same would be ideal, as in "zero reversion rule," whereby we come to concensus, but the ideal is rarely reached in totality, but is still good to have as a target goal to seek.--] 17:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)</font> | |||
Revision as of 17:22, 21 July 2005
A text move involves two steps:
- cutting a disputed passage of text from an article; and,
- pasting the text into the article's talk page
Those who do not want to start an edit war should avoid reverting a text move. It's better to to discuss the disputed passage with other contributors.
There are certain times and places at Misplaced Pages where this is the rule (this definition is part of a policy proposal used in Mediations).
- Question: When you say "revert," do you mean to try to avoid reverting the "source" page (such as the article on Terri Schiavo), where the "cut/copy" occurs or do you mean the "destination" page (such as the talk page where the "paste" occurs? Thanks!--GordonWattsDotCom 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Answer: The source page should not be reverted.
Thank you. (I put this page on watchlist & saw your answer.) Keeping the source the same would be ideal, as in "zero reversion rule," whereby we come to concensus, but the ideal is rarely reached in totality, but is still good to have as a target goal to seek.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)