User talk:Levelledout: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:21, 22 March 2015 editLevelledout (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,042 edits →Electronic cigarette ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:57, 23 March 2015 edit undoMr. Stradivarius (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,191 edits →Electronic cigarette: replyNext edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	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 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 ]. 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)
	~~<br>~~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)		::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)

Revision as of 00:57, 23 March 2015

Electronic cigarette

Hello Levelledout. I see that you've just made a revert at the Electronic cigarette 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 edit-warring policy. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Mr. Stradivarius. 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 full page protection lifted, then almost immediately made 17 edits in two hours including a 9k edit? It seems very difficult to actually work together to achieve consensus when this is happening.Levelledout (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, 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.Levelledout (talk) 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 Electronic cigarette article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the edit-warring policy strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the three-revert rule 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 — Mr. Stradivarius 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)